1.

LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Self-organization; Scope
Title: Knitjoy Manufacturing, Inc. v Ferrer-Calleja, KNITJOY MONTHLY EMPLOYEES UNION (KMEU), G.R. No.
81883, September 23, 1992, Davide J.:
Facts: Pri or to the expi rati on of the CBA, the Trade Uni on of the Phi l i ppi nes and Al l i ed Servi ces (TUPAS) fi l ed a
peti ti on for the hol di ng of a certi fi cati on el ecti on among KNITJOY’s regul ar rank-and-fi l e empl oyees pai d on a dai l y
and pi ece-rate basi s. Excl uded were the regul ar rank-and-fi l e empl oyees pai d on a monthl y basi s. In the
certi fi cati on el ecti on, Confederati on of Fi l i pi no Workers (CFW) emerged as the wi nner; thereafter, negoti ati ons for
a new CBA between CFW and KNITJOY commenced. Duri ng the pendency of the sai d negoti ati ons, KMEU peti ti on
for certi fi cati on el ecti on among regul ar rank-and-fi l e monthl y-pai d empl oyees wi th Regi onal Offi ce No. IV of the
Department of Labor and Empl oyment (DOLE) whi ch docketed the same as R-04-OD-M-6-75-87.

Issue: W.O.N the Monthl y Empl oyees may proceed to the certi fi cati on el ecti on.

Deci si on: They may proceed.
Rati o: KNITJOY and CFW recogni ze that i nsofar as the monthl y-pai d empl oyees are concerned, the l atter’s
consti tuti ng a separate bargai ni ng uni t wi th the appropri ate uni on as sol e bargai ni ng representati ve, can nei ther
be prevented nor avoi ded wi thout i nfri ngi ng on these empl oyees’ ri ghts to form a uni on and to enter i nto
col l ecti ve bargai ni ng negoti ati ons. Stated di fferentl y, KNITJOY and CFW recogni ze the fact that the exi sti ng
bargai ni ng uni t i n the former i s not — and has never been — the empl oyer uni t. Gi ven thi s hi stori cal and factual
setti ng, KMEU had the unquesti oned and undi sputed ri ght to seek certi fi cati on as the excl usi ve bargai ni ng
representati ve for the monthl y-pai d rank-and-fi l e empl oyees; both KNITJOY and CFW cannot bl ock the same on
the basi s of thi s Court’s decl arati on i n Bul l eti n Publ i shi ng Corp. v. Hon. Sanchez 15 and General Rubber and
Footwear Corp. v. Bureau of Labor Rel ati ons (155 SCRA 283 [1987]) regardi ng the one-company-one uni on
concept.

2. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Self-organization; Covered employees; Government employees
Title: GSIS v. KapisananngmgaManggagawasa GSIS, G.R. No. 170132, December 6, 2006, GARCIA, J.:
Facts: A four-day concerted demonstrati on, ral l i es and en masse wal kout and absent wi thout l eave waged/hel d
i n front of the GSIS mai n offi ce. The manager of the GSIS i nvesti gate. KMG Peti ti on for Prohi bi ti on at the CA.
However the GSIS proceeded resul ti ng i n some to mul ti pl e order of exonerati on, repri mand and suspensi on. The
CA rendered that GSIS Presi dent Garci a’s fi l i ng of admi ni strati ve charges agai nst 361 of KMG’s members i s
tantamount to grave abuse of di screti on i nvoki ng Justi ce Cruz’s di ssenti ng opi ni on i n MPSTA v. Lagui o (1991) that
the freedom of expressi on and assembl y and the ri ght to peti ti on the government for a redress of gri evances stand
on a l evel hi gher than economi c and other l i berti es. About these ri ghts as i ncl udi ng the ri ght on the part of
government personnel to stri ke.

Issue: W.O.N that the freedom of expressi on and assembl y and the ri ght to peti ti on the government for a
redress of gri evances and ri ght to sel f-organi zati on does i ncl ude the ri ght on the part of government personnel to
stri ke.

Deci si o: It does not i ncl ude.
Rati o: In Jaci nto v. CA (1997)the Consti tuti on i tsel f qual i fi es the exerci se of peaceful concerted acti vi ti es,
i ncl udi ng the ri ght to stri ke of wi th the provi si on “i n accordance wi th l aw.” Thi s i s a cl ear mani festati on that the
state may, by l aw, regul ate the use of thi s ri ght, or even deny certai n sectors such ri ght. Executi ve Order 180
whi ch provi des gui del i nes for the exerci se of the ri ght of government workers to organi ze, for i nstance, i mpl i ci tl y
endorsed an earl i er CSC ci rcul ar whi ch “enjoi ns under pai n of admi ni strati ve sanctions, al l government offi cers and
empl oyees from stagi ng stri kes, demonstrati ons, mass l eaves, wal kouts and other forms of mass acti on whi ch wi l l
resul t i n temporary stoppage or di srupti on of publ i c servi ce” by stati ng that the Ci vi l Servi ce l aw and rul es
governi ng concerted acti vi ti es and stri kes i n government servi ce shal l be observed.
MPSTA v. Lagui o, (1991), the ri ght of government empl oyees to organi ze i s l i mi ted to the formati on of uni ons or
associ ati ons, wi thout i ncl udi ng the ri ght to stri ke.

3. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Self-organization; Covered employees; Managerial and supervisory
employees; Mixed membership
Title: Tunay na Pagkakaisang Manggagawasa Asia Brewery v. Asia Brewery, Inc., G.R. No. 162025, August 3,
2010 VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Facts: ABI’s management stopped deducti ng uni on dues vi ol ated the CBA bei ng ei ther Confi denti al and
Executi ve Secretari es or Purchasi ng and Qual i ty Control Staff from some of the fol l owi ng:
1.QA Sampl i ng Inspectors/Inspectresses and Machi ne Gauge Techni ci an who formed part of the Qual i ty Control
Staff ; 2. checkers are assi gned at the Materi al s Department of the Admi ni strati on Di vi si on, Ful l Goods
Department of the Brewery Di vi si on and Packagi ng Di vi si on.
3. secretari es/cl erks di rectly under thei r respecti ve di vi si on managers. The Vol untary Arbi trator found that the
posi ti ons of the subject empl oyees qual i fy under the rank-and-fi l e category because thei r functi ons are merel y
routi nary and cl eri cal .

Issue: W.O.N. the Sampl i ng Inspectors , Gauge Machi ne Techni ci an, secretari es/cl erks and checkers are
di squal i fi ed from membershi p i n the Uni on of respondent’s rank-and-fi l e empl oyees.

Deci si o: 1.The Sampl i ng Inspectors, and Gauge Machi ne Techni ci an di squal i fi ed
2. The secretari es/cl erks and checkers are qual i fi ed.
Rati o: 1. Wi th respect to the Sampl i ng Inspectors and the Gauge Machi ne Techni ci an, there seems no di spute
that they form part of the Qual i ty Control Staff..

2. There i s no showi ng i n thi s case that the secretari es/cl erks and checkers assi sted or acted i n a confi denti al
capaci ty to manageri al empl oyees and obtai ned confi denti al i nformati on rel ati ng to l abor rel ati ons pol i ci es. And
even assumi ng that they had exposure to i nternal busi ness operati ons of the company, thi s i s not per se ground for
thei r excl usi on i n the bargai ni ng uni t of the dai l y-pai d rank-and-fi l e empl oyees.

4. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Self-organization; Covered employees; Managerial and supervisory
employees; Mixed membership
Title: Holy Child Catholic School(HCCS) v. Sto. Tomas, UNION (HCCS-TELU-PIGLAS) G.R. No. 179146, July 23,
2013, PERALTA, J.:
Facts: A peti ti on for certi fi cati on el ecti on was fi l ed by pri vate respondent compri si ng teachers and empl oyees.
HCCS rai sed that UNION members do not bel ong to the same cl ass; i t i s not onl y a mi xture of manageri al ,
supervi sory but al so acombi nati on of teachi ng and non-teachi ng personnel and rank-and-fi l e empl oyees. HCCS
i nsi sted the i ssue bel ow.

Issue: W.O.N. a peti ti on for certi fi cati on el ecti on i s di smi ssi bl e on the ground that the l abor organi zati on’s
membershi p al l egedl y consi sts of supervi sory and rank-and fi l e empl oyees.

Deci si o: It i s not di smi ssi bl e.
Rati o: SamahangManggagawasa Charter Chemi cal Sol i dari ty of Uni ons i n the Phi l i ppi nes for Empowerment and
Reforms (SMCC-Super) v. Charter Chemi cal and Coati ng Corporati on, the al l eged i ncl usi onof supervi sory
empl oyees i n a l abor organi zati on seeki ng to represent the bargai ni ng uni t of rank-and-fi l e empl oyees does not
di vest i t of i ts status as al egi ti mate l abor organi zati on.

5. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Self-organization; Covered employees; Managerial and supervisory
employees; Mixed membership
Title: Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. v. Lepanto Capataz Union, G.R. No. 157086, February 18, 2013
Facts: Lepanto opposed the certi fi cati on el ecti on of CAPATAZ whi ch i s the onl y l abor organi zati on i n the
empl oyer uni t, contendi ng that i t woul d be thereby competi ng wi th the Lepanto Empl oyees Uni on (LEU), the
current col l ecti ve bargai ni ng agent of the rank and fi l e. Lepanto poi nted out that the capatazeswere al ready
members of LEU.

Issue: W.O.N. the Uni on empl oyer uni t can proceed for certi fi cati on el ecti on.

Deci si o: They can proceed.
Rati o: There i s no other l abor organi zati on wi thi n the empl oyer uni t except CAPATAZ. Thus, Lepanto i s an
unorgani zed establ i shment i n so far as the bargai ni ng uni t of capatazes i s concerned. The order for the conduct of
a certi fi cati on el ecti on i s proper.


6. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Self-organization; Covered employees; Security Guards
Title: MERALCO v. Sec. of Labor, G.R. No. 91902, May 20, 1991
Facts: The Uni on of staff and techni cal empl oyees of MERALCO fi l ed a peti ti on for certi fi cati on
el ecti on.MERALCO contended that securi ty guard, under the l aw, are prohi bi ted from formi ng, joi ni ng or assi sti ng
a l abor organi zati on of the rank and fi l e.

Issue: W.O.N. the securi ty guards or personnel may be l umped together wi th the rank-and-fi l e uni on and/or the
supervi sory uni on.

Deci si o: They may be l umped together.
Rati o: Art. 245 does not i ncl ude securi ty guards i n the di squal i fi cati on.

7. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Self-organization; Covered employees; Members of cooperatives
Title: Central Negros Electric Cooperative v. DOLE, CURE(union), G.R. No. 94045, September 13, 1991
Facts: CENECO empl oyees who at the same ti me are members of an el ectri c cooperati ve wi thdrew thei r
membershi p from the cooperati ve i n order to form uni on or joi n CURE.

Issue: W.O.N. the empl oyees of CENECO who wi thdrew thei r membershi p from the cooperati ve are enti tl ed to
form or joi n CURE for purposes of the negoti ati ons for a col l ecti ve bargai ni ng agreement proposed by the l atter

Deci si o: They are enti tl ed.
Rati o: Si nce empl oyees who at the same ti me are members of an el ectri c cooperati ve are not enti tl ed to form or
joi n a uni on, the ri ght of the empl oyees to sel f-organi zati on i s a compel l i ng reason why they wi thdraw from the
cooperati ve. The avowed pol i cy of the State to afford fal l protecti on to l abor and to promote the pri macy of free
col l ecti ve bargai ni ng mandates that the empl oyees' ri ght to form and joi n uni ons for purposes of col l ecti ve
bargai ni ng be accorded the hi ghest consi derati on.


8. Int’l Catholic Immigration Commission v. Calleja, G.R. No. 85750, September 28, 1990
FACTS:
1. GR # 85750- the Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) case.
ICMC was one of those accredi ted by the Phi l i ppi ne government to operate the refugee processi ng center i n
Morong, Bataan. That comes from an argument between the Phi l i ppi ne government and the Uni ted Nati ons Hi gh
Commi ssi oner for refugees for eventual resettl ement to other countri es was to be establ i shed i n Bataan.
ICMC was dul y regi stered wi th the Uni ted Nati ons Economi c and Soci al Counci l and enjoys consul tati ve s tatus. As
an i nternati onal organi zati on renderi ng vol untary and humani tari an servi ces i n the Phi l i ppi nes, i ts acti vi ti es are
paral l el to those of the i nternati onal commi ttee for mi grati on and the i nternati onal of the red cross.
On Jul y 14,1986, Trade Uni ons of the Phi l i ppi nes and Al l i ed for certi fi cati on wi th the then Mi ni stry of Labor and
Empl oyment a peti ti on for certi fi cati on el ecti on among the rank and fi l e members empl oyed by ICMC. The l atter
opposed the peti ti on on the ground that i t i s an i nternati onal organi zati on regi stered wi th the Uni ted Nati ons and
hence, enjoys di pl omati c i mmuni ty.
The Med-Arbi ter sustai ned ICMC and di smi ssed the peti ti on for each of juri sdi cti on. On appeal by TUPAS, Di rector
Cal l eja, reversed the Med-arbi ter’s deci si on and ordered the i mmedi ate conduct of a certi fi cati on el ecti on. ICMC
then sought the i mmedi ate di smi ssal of the TUPAS peti ti on for certi fi cati on el ecti on i nvol vi ng the i mmuni ty
expressl y granted but the same was deni ed. Wi th i nterventi on of department of forei gn af fai rs who was l egal
i nterest i n the outcome of thi s case, the second di vi si on gave due to the ICMC peti ti on and requi red the submi ttal
of memoranda by the parti es.
1. GR # 89331- the IRRI case
The Internati onal Ri ce Research Insti tute was a frui t of memorandum of understandi ng between the Phi l i ppi ne
government and the Ford and Rochefel l er Foundati ons. It was i ntended to be an autonomous, phi l anthropi c tax -
free, non-profi t, non stock organi zati on desi gned to carry out the pri nci pal objecti ve of conducti ng “ ba si c research
on the ri ce pl ant.”
It was organi zed and regi stered wi th the SEC as a pri vate corporati on subject to al l l aws and regul ati ons. However,
by vi rtue of P.D no. 1620, IRRI was granted the status, prerogati ves, pri vi l eges and i mmuni ti es of an i nter nati onal
organi zati on.
The Kapi sanan fi l ed a peti ti on for di rect certi fi cati on el ecti on wi th regi onal offi ce of the Department of Labor and
Empl oyment. IRRI opposed the peti ti on i nvoki ng Pres. Decree no.1620 conferri ng upon i t the status of an
i nternati onal organi zati on and granti ng i t i mmuni ty from al l ci vi l , cri mi nal , and admi ni strati ve proceedi ngs under
Phi l i ppi ne l aws. The Med-Arbi ter uphel d the opposi ti on on the basi s of PD 1620 and di smi ssed the peti ti on for
di rect certi fi cati on.
On appeal by BLR Di rector, set asi de the med-arbi ter’s deci si on and contends that i mmuni ti es and pri vi l eges
granted to IRRI do not i ncl ude exempti on from coverage of our l abor l aws.

ISSUES:
GR # 85750- the ICMC case:
Whether or not the grant of di pl omati c pri vi l eges and i mmuni ti es to ICMC extends to i mmuni ty from the
appl i cati on of Phi l i ppi ne l abor l aws.
GR no. 89331- the IRRI case:
Whether or not the Secretary of Labor commi tted grave abuse of di screti on i n di smi ssi ng the peti ti on for
certi fi cati on el ecti on fi l ed by Kapi sanan.

RULING:
The grant of di pl omati c pri vi l eges and i mmuni ti es to ICMC extends to i mmuni ty from the appl i cati on of Phi l i ppi ne
l abor l aws, because i t i s cl earl y necessi tated by thei r i nternati onal character and respecti ve purposes whi ch i s to
avoi d the danger of parti al i ty and i nterference by the host country i n thei r i nternal worki ngs.
Empl oyees are not wi thout recourse whenever there are di sputes to be settl ed because each speci al i zed agency
shal l make provi si on for appropri ate modes of settl ement of di sputes out of contracts or other di sputes of pri vate
character to whi ch the speci al i zed agency i s a party. Moreover, pursuant to arti cl e IV of memorandum of abuse of
pri vi l ege by ICMC, the government i s free to wi thdraw the pri vi l eges and i mmuni ti es accorded.
No grave abuse of di screti on may be i mputed to respondent secretary of l abor i n hi s assumpti on of appel ate
juri sdiction, contrary to Kapi sanan’s al l egati on, hence, any party to an el ecti on may appeal the order or resul ts of
the el ecti ons as determi ned by the med-arbi ter di rectl y to the secretary of l abor and empl oyment on the ground
that the rul es and regul ati ons or parts thereof establ i shed by the secretary of l abor and empl oyment for the
conduct of the el ecti on have been vi ol ated.
Wherefore, peti ti on granted i n ICMC case and i n IRRI case, the peti ti on was di smi ssed.

9. NUWHRAIN v. Sec. of Labor, G.R. No. 181531, July 31, 2009
Quorum
Facts: same facts as the earl i er NUWHRAIN caseSOLE concl uded that the certi fi cati on of HIMPHLU as the excl usi ve
bargai ni ng agent was proper.
Peti ti oner, whi ch garnered 151 votes, appeal ed to the Secretary of Labor and Empl oyment (SOLE), argui ng that the
votes of the probati onary empl oyees shoul d have been opened consi deri ng that probati onary empl oyee
Gatbonton’s vote was tal l i ed. And peti ti oner averred that respondent HIMPHLU, whi ch garnered 169 votes, shoul d
not be i mmedi atel y certi fi ed as the bargai ni ng agent, as the openi ng of the 17 segregated bal l ots woul d push the
number of val i d votes cast to 338 (151 + 169 + 1 + 17), hence, the 169 votes whi ch HIMPHLU garnered woul d be
one vote short of the majori ty whi ch woul d then become 169.

Issue: WON HIMPHLU i s the wi nner of the certi fi cati on el ecti on
Hel d: No.
As to whether HIMPHLU shoul d be certi fi ed as the excl usi ve bargai ni ng agent, the Court rul es i n the
negati ve. It i s wel l -settl ed that under the so-cal l ed "doubl e majori ty rul e," for there to be a val i d certi fi cati on
el ecti on, majori ty of the bargai ni ng uni t must have voted AND the wi nni ng uni on must have garnered majori ty of
the val i d votes cast.
Presci ndi ng from the Court’s rul i ng that al l the probati onary empl oyees’ votes shoul d be deemed val i d
votes whi l e that of the supervi sory empl oyees shoul d be excl uded, i t fol l ows that the number of val i d votes cast
woul d i ncrease – from 321 to 337. Under Art. 256 of the Labor Code, the uni on obtai ni ng the majori ty of the val i d
votes cast by the el i gi bl e voters shal l be certi fi ed as the sol e and excl usi ve bargai ni ng agent of al l the workers i n
the appropri ate bargai ni ng uni t. Thi s majori ty i s 50% + 1. Hence, 50% of 337 i s 168.5 + 1 or at l east 170.
HIMPHLU obtai ned 169 whi l e peti ti oner recei ved 151 votes. Cl earl y, HIMPHLU was not abl e to obtai n a
majori ty vote. The posi ti on of both the SOLE and the appel l ate court that the openi ng of the 17 segregated bal l ots
wi l l not materi al l y affect the outcome of the certi fi cati on el ecti on as for, so they contend, even i f such member
were al l i n favor of peti ti oner, sti l l , HIMPHLU woul d wi n, i s thus untenabl e.
It bears rei terati on that the true i mportance of ascertai ni ng the number of val i d votes cast i s for i t to
serve as basi s for computi ng the requi red majori ty, and not just to determi ne whi ch uni on won the el ecti ons. The
openi ng of the segregated but val i d votes has thus become materi al . To be sure, the conduct of a certi fi cati on
el ecti on has a two-fol d objecti ve: to determi ne the appropri ate bargai ni ng uni t and to ascertai n the majori ty
representati on of the bargai ni ng representati ve, i f the empl oyees desi re to be represented at al l by anyone. It i s
not si mpl y the determi nati on of who between two or more contendi ng uni ons won, but whether i t effecti vel y
ascertai ns the wi l l of the members of the bargai ni ng uni t as to whether they want to be represented and whi ch
uni on they want to represent them.
Havi ng decl ared that no choi ce i n the certi fi cati on el ecti on conducted obtai ned the requi red majori ty, i t
fol l ows that a run-off el ecti on must be hel d to determi ne whi ch between HIMPHLU and peti ti oner shoul d
represent the rank-and-fi l e empl oyees.


10. Heirs of Teodulo M. Cruz v. CIR
Facts: The Santi ago Labor Uni on fi l ed a peti ti on for payment of unpai d wages and other premi um payments
agai nst respondent fi rm, Santi ago Ri ce Mi l l . In the course of the proceedi ngs the parti es opt to meet and settl e
ami cabl y. The Uni on offers a mi ni mum payment of 200,000 from the respondent fi rm, but the l atter counter -
offered wi th a much l esser amount of 110,000. Thereafter another conference was hel d and attended by uni on
offi ci al s headed by the Presi dent and representati ves of respondent fi rm. In such conference they agreed to settl e
i n the amount 110,000 i n exchange that the Uni on wai ves i ts cl ai ms agai nst the respondent.
After bei ng noti fi ed of the unauthori zed agreement, some of the Uni on members contested the qui tcl ai m stati ng
that the Uni on Presi dent i s wi thout authori ty to enter i nto such agreement. That i t does not bi nd the Uni on.

Issue: Whether Uni on Presi dent has the authori ty to enter i nto a qui tcl ai m agreement to bi nd the Uni on

Hel d: The Uni on Presi dent must be speci fi cal l y authori zed by the Uni on members. Nothi ng i n the facts shows that
the Presi dent was gi ven express authori ty by the members to execute a judgment award i n thei r favor. Such i s the
rul e that the authori ty of the uni on as such, to execute a settl ement of the judgment award i n favor of the
i ndi vi dual uni on members, cannot be presumed but must be expressl y granted.

11. Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union
FACTS: Benjami n vi ctori ano a member of i gl esi ani cri sto had been i n the empl oy of the El i zal de Rope factory Inc
si nce 1958. Her was a member of el i zal de rope workers uni on whi ch had wi th the company a CBA contai ni ng a
cl osed shop provi si on whi ch reads as fol l ow “Membershi p uni on shal l be requi red as a condi ti on of empl oyment
for al l permanent empl oyees worker covered by thi s agreement.” RA 3350 was enacted i ntroduci ng an
amendment to paragraph (4) subsecti on (a) of secti on 4 of RA 875 as fol l ows “ but such agreement shal l not cover
members of any rel i gi ous sect whi ch prohi bi t affi liation of thei r member i n any such 0l abor organi zati on” Benjamin
vi ctori ano presents hi s resi gnati on to appel l ant uni on thereupon the uni on wrote a formal l etter to separate the
appel l ee from the servi ce i n vi ew of the fact that he was resi gni ng from the uni on as member of the company
noti fi ed the apel l ee and hi s counsel that unl ess the appel l ee coul d achi eve a sati sfactory arrangement wi th the
uni on the company woul d be constrai ned to di smi ss hi m from the servi ce . thi s prompted appel l ee to fi l e an acti on
for i njuncti on to enjoi n the company and the uni on from di smi ssi ng apal l ee.

ISSUE: WON RA 3350 i s unconsti tuti onal

HELD: the consti tuti on provi si on onl y prohi bi ts l egi sl ati on for the support of any rel i gi ous tenets or the modes of
worshi p of any sect, thus forestal l i ng compul si on by l aw of the acceptance of any creed or the chosen form of
rel i gi on wi thi n l i mi ts of utmost ampl i tude. RA 3350 does not requi re as a qual i fi cati on on condi ti on i n joi ni ng any
l awful associ ati on membershi p i n any parti cul ar rel i gi on on i n any rel i gi ous sect nei ther does the act requi res
affi l i ati on wi th a rel i gi ous sect that prohi bi ts i ts member from joi ni ng a l abor uni on as a condi ti on on qual i fi cati on
for wi thdrawi ng from l abor uni on RA 3350 onl y exempts member wi th such rel i gi ous affi lil i ati on from the requi red
to do a posi ti ve act – to exerci se the ri ght to joi n or to resi gn from the uni on. He i s exempted from form the
coverage of any cl osed shop agreement that a l abor uni on may have entered i nto. Therefore RA 3350 i s never an
i l l egal evasion of consti tuti onal provi si on or prohi bi ti on to accompl i sh a desi red resul t whi ch i s l awful i n i tsel f by
veri ng or fol l owi ng a l egal way to do i t.


12. Flora v. Oximiana
Facts: Vi cente Oxi mi ana was the presi dent of Benquet-Bal atoc Worker’s Uni on i n 1960. Si nce i ts organi zati on from
1948 respondent has been re-el ected for the posi ti on. However, i n 1926 he was convi cted of a cri me i nvol vi ng
moral turpi tude, but was granted absol ute pardon by the then Presi dent of the Phi l i ppi nes.
On such ground a compl ai nt was fi l ed agai nst hi m seeki ng to di squali fy hi m from hi s posi ti on. The tri al court rul ed
i n favor of Oxi mi ana and was affi rmed on appeal .

Issue: Whether Oxi mi ana i s di squal i fi ed to be Presi dent of the Uni on despi te bei ng convi cted of a cri me i nvol vi ng
moral turpi tude.

Hel d: The Court affi rms the deci si ons of the tri al and the appel l ate court. Where i f not for the Absol ute pardon
granted to hi m he woul d have been di squal i fi ed for the posi ti on, pardon removes al l penal ti es and l egal
di sabi l i ti es, and restores the defendant to al l hi s ci vi l ri ghts.


13. Tancinco v. PuraFerrer-Calleja
Facts: A prel i mi nary el ecti on conference was bei ng hel d but some 56 empl oyees were excl uded from the l i st of
voters grounded that some of them are personal empl oyees of the empl oyer, members of INC, Non-Empl oyees,
and Non-ti me card empl oyees. Thereafter peti ti oners fi l ed a protest contesti ng such excl usi on. BLR rendered a
deci si on hol di ng that the excl usi on was arbi trary and whi msi cal but set asi de the chal l enged order because 51 of
the 56 excl uded empl oyees were not uni on members at the ti me of the el ecti on on the ground that thei r names do
not appear i n the records of the Uni on submi tted to the Labor Organi zati on Di vi si on of the Bureau of Labor.

Issue: Whether such empl oyees have the ri ght to vote

Hel d: The fi ndi ng does not have a l eg to stand on. Submi ssi on of the empl oyees’ names wi th the BLR as qual i fi ed
members of the uni on i s not a condi ti on sine qua non to enabl e sai d members to vote i n the el ecti on of uni on's
offi cers. It fi nds no support i n fact and i n l aw.


14. MANALAD VS. TRAJANO
FACTS
The parti es are empl oyees of Uni ted Dockhandl ers, Inc, ri val groups i n the Associ ated Port Checkers and
Workers'Uni on (APCWU) Peti ti oner l ed by Ri cardo R. Manal ad, wi th respondent Pabl o B. Babul a headi ng the group
of pri vate respondents.Al though qual i fi cati ons have been earl i er questi oned, Manal ad et al won the el ecti ons for
APCWU offi cers onNovember 26, 1984. Babul a et al fi l ed peti ti on for revi ew and on Jul y 3, 1985, the court
promul gated a resol uti onto di smi ss peti ti on for l ack of meri t and have peti ti oner Babul a et al vacant APCWU
offi ces and turnovermanagement to Di rector of the Bureau of Labor Rel ati ons, al l for i mmedi ate executi on, to be
fol l owed by a speci al el ecti ons to be hel d on Jul y 20, 1985 (to be hel d under the personal supervi si on of Di rector
Trajano and hi s staff).Babul a et al were al l eged to refuse compl i ance wi th the above resol uti on as documented i n
the peti ti on fi l ed byManal ad et al . The Jul y 20 1985 speci al el ecti on was hel d havi ng Babul a et al as wi nners and
dul y el ected offi ci al sof APCWU.Manal ad et al fi l ed peti ti on to di squal i fy Babul a et al as wi nners due to thei r non-
compl i ance to the Jul y 3 1985resol uti on, but Di rector Trajano di smi ssed thei r peti ti on and procl ai med Babul a et al
as the wi nners of the Jul y 20,1985 speci al el ecti ons. Manal ad et al , then, fi l ed peti ti on to SC to reverse resol uti on
of Trajano, have Babul a et al di squal i fi ed and annul the Jul y 20 1985 el ecti ons/conduct re-el ecti ons.In 1988, when
3-year term for the di sputed 1985 el ecti on expi red, a new set of offi cers for ACPWU has beenel ected despi te
moti on for RTO. Manal ad et al prayed for the annul ment of 1988 el ecti ons.

ISSUE
Whether or not moti on for annul ment of 1988 el ecti ons i s moot and academi c

RULING
Yes. The court found the moti on for annul ment of the 1988 ACPWU el ecti ons moot and academi c for the
ff. reasons: It i s poi ntl ess and unreal i sti c to i nsi st on annul l i ng an el ecti on of offi cers whose terms had
al readyexpi red. We must consequentl y abi de by our consi stent rul i ng that where certai n events or
ci rcumstanceshave taken pl ace duri ng the pendency of the case whi ch woul d render the case moot and academi c,
thepeti ti on shoul d be di smi ssed.
The court respects the wi l l of the majori ty of the workers who voted i n the November 28, 1988 el ecti ons.
Contenti ons of peti ti oners do not adequatel y establ i sh the basi s for contempt but respondents havesati sfactori l y
answered the averments thereon.- Obtai ni ng the second hi ghest number of votes does not mean that they wi l l
thereby be consi dered asthe el ected offi cers i f the true wi nners are di squal i fi ed.







15. Del Pilar Academy v. Del Pilar Academy Employees’ Union, G.R. No. 170112, April 30, 2008
Labor Relations – Agency Fee to be Deducted from Non-Union Members who Benefited
In September 1994, the Del Pi l ar Academy and the Del Pi l ar Academy Empl oyees Uni on entered i nto a col l ecti ve
bargai ni ng agreement where i t was agreed that:
a. the empl oyees, teachi ng and non-teachi ng staff, shal l have a sal ary i ncrease;
b. the teachi ng staff shal l have a maxi mum l oad of 23 hours per week i n teachi ng;
c. any overl oad shal l be pai d extra;
d. there shal l be an i ncrease i n the l ongevi ty pay;
e. teachi ng staff who have rendered servi ce for 6 consecuti ve semester are enti tl ed to recei ve pay duri ng summer
breaks;
f. non-uni on members who have rendered at l east 1 year of servi ce shal l be enti tl ed to 15 days l eave wi th pay.
Si nce the new CBA benefi ts non-uni on members, the uni on asked Del Pi l ar to deduct agency fees from the sal ari es
of non-uni on members. Del Pi l ar refused to do so hence a l abor case was fi l ed by the uni on.
In i ts defense, Del Pi l ar avers that i t cannot col l ect agency fees because the non-uni on members refused to provi de
Del Pi l ar a check off authori zati on to make deducti ons from thei r sal ari es; and that further, the non-uni on
members are not benefi ted because regardl ess of the CBA, empl oyees are goi ng to be gi ven a sal ary i ncrease
pursuant to a program by the DECS whi ch mandates al l pri vate school s to provi de for sal ary i ncrease based on
tui ti on profi ts.

ISSUE: Whether or not Del Pi l ar must col l ect the sai d agency fees.

HELD: Yes. Thi s i s pursuant to Arti cl e 248 of the Labor Code whi ch provi des:
Employees of an appropriate collective bargaining unit who are not members of the recognized collective
bargaining agency may be assessed a reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by members of the
recognized collective bargaining agreement… xxx
Thi s i s al so an excepti on to the rul e that any deducti ons compri si ng of speci al assessments or extraordi nary fees
(Art. 241, Labor Code) made by the empl oyer from an empl oyees sal ary must be authori zed by the empl oyee.
It may be true that the sal ary i ncrease provi si on may not have benefi ted the non-uni on members at al l because of
the exi sti ng DECS regul ati on but i t i s al so undeni abl e that the CBA al so provi des for other provi si ons whi ch benefi ts
non-uni on members such as the grant of 15 pai d l eaves, the l i mi tati on of workl oads, and premi ums for overl oads.
Al l these surel y benefi ted even non-uni on empl oyees.


16. Gabriel v. Sec. of Labor, G.R. No. 115949, March 16, 2000
Fact: Someti me i n October 1991, the uni on’s Executi ve Board deci ded to retai n anew the servi ce of Atty. Ignaci o P.
Lacsi na (now deceased) as uni on counsel i n connecti on wi th the negoti ati ons for a new Col l ecti ve Bargai ni ng
Agreement (CBA). Accordi ngl y, on October 19, 1991, the board cal l ed a general membershi p meeti ng for the
purpose. At the sai d meeti ng, the majori ty of al l uni on members approved and si gned a resol uti on confi rmi ng the
deci si on of the executi ve board to engage the servi ces of Atty. Lacsi na as uni on counsel .
As approved, the resol uti on provi ded that ten percent (10%) of the tota l economi c benefi ts that may be
secured through the negoti ati ons be gi ven to Atty. Lacsi na as attorney’s fees. It al so contai ned an authori zati on for
Sol i dBank Corporati on to check-off sai d attorney’s fees from the fi rst l ump sum payment of benefi ts to the
empl oyees under the new CBA and to turn over sai d amount to Atty. Lacsi na and/or hi s dul y authori zed
representati ve.
On October 2, 1992, pri vate respondents i nsti tuted a compl ai nt agai nst the peti ti oners and the uni on counsel
before the Department of Labor and Empl oyment (DOLE) for i l l egal deducti on of attorney’s fees.

Issue: Whether or not not empl oyees must be deducted attorney’s fees

Hel d: Arti cl e 222 (b) states:"No attorney’s fees, negoti ati on fees or si mi l ar charges of any ki nd ari si ng from any
col l ecti ve bargai ni ng negoti ati ons or concl usi ons of the col l ecti ve agreement shal l be i mposed on any i ndi vi dual
member of the contracti ng uni on: Provided, however, that attorney’s fees may be charged against union funds in
an amount to be agreed upon by the parties.Any contract, agreement or arrangement of any sort to the contrary
shal l be nul l and voi d."
Arti cl e 241 (o) provi des:
"Other than for mandatory acti vi ti es under the Code, no speci al assessment, attorney’s fees, negoti ati on fees or
any other extraordi nary fees may be checked off from any amount due to an empl oyee without an individual
written authorization duly signed by the employee. The authorization should specifically state the amount,
purpose and beneficiary of the deduction."
Arti cl e 241 has three (3) requi si tes for the val i di ty of the speci al assessment for uni on’s i nci dental expenses,
attorney’s fees and representati on expenses. These are: 1) authori zati on by a wri tten resol uti on of the majori ty of
al l the members at the general membershi p meeti ng cal l ed for the purpose; (2) secretary’s record of the mi nutes
of the meeti ng; and (3) i ndi vi dual wri tten authori zati on for check off dul y si gned by the empl oyees
concerned. Sceä dp
Cl earl y, attorney’s fees may not be deducted or checked off from any amount due to an empl oyee
wi thout hi s wri tten consent.
The obligation to pay the attorney’s fees belongs to the union and cannot be shunted to the workers as
their direct responsibility. Neither the lawyer nor the union itself may require the individual worker to assume
the obligation to pay attorney’s fees from their own pockets. So categori cal i s thi s i ntent that the l aw makes i t
cl ear that any agreement to the contrary shal l be nul l and voi d ab initio."


17. Marino, Jr. v. Gamilla, G.R. No. 149763, July 7, 2009

Fact: USTFU, through i ts Presi dent, peti ti oner Atty. Mari ño, wrote a l etter
[8]
dated 1 October 1992 to the UST
Treasurer requesti ng the rel ease to the uni on of the sum of P4.2 mi l l i on, whi ch was 10% of the P42 mi l l i on
economi c benefi ts package granted by the MOA to facul ty members bel ongi ng to the col l ecti ve bargai ni ng
uni t. The P4.2 mi l l i on was sought by USTFU i n consi derati on of i ts efforts i n obtai ni ng the sai d P42 mi l l i on
economi c benefi ts package. UST remi tted the sum of P4.2 mi l l i on to USTFU on 9 October 1992.
[9]

After deducti ng from the P42 mi l l i on economi c benefi ts package the P4.2 mi l l i on check-off to USTFU, the
amounts owed to UST, and the sal ary i ncreases and bonuses of the covered facul ty members, a net amount
of P6,389,145.04 remai ned. The remai ni ng amount was di stri buted to the facul ty members on 18 November 1994.
On 15 December 1994, respondents
[10]
fi l ed wi th the Med-Arbi ter, DOLE-Nati onal Capi tal Regi on (NCR), a
Compl ai nt for the expul si on of the Mari ño Group as USTFU offi cers and di rectors, whi ch was docketed as Case No.
NCR-OD-M-9412-022.
[11]
Respondents al l eged i n thei r Compl ai nt that the Mari ño Group vi ol ated the ri ghts and
condi ti ons of membershi p i n USTFU, parti cul arl y by: 1) i nvesti ng the unspent bal ance of the P42 mi l l i on economi c
benefi ts package gi ven by UST wi thout pri or approval of the general membershi p; 2) si mul taneousl y hol di ng
el ecti ons viva voce; 3) rati fyi ng the CBA i nvol vi ng the P42 mi l l i on economi c benefi ts package; and 4) approvi ng the
attorney’s/agency fees worth P4.2 mi l l i on i n the form of check-off. Respondents prayed that the Mari ño Group be
decl ared joi ntl y and several l y l i abl e for refundi ng al l col l ected attorney’s/agency fees from i ndi vi dual members of
USTFU and the col l ecti ve bargai ni ng uni t; and that, after due heari ng, the Mari ño group be expel l ed as USTFU
offi cers and di rectors.

Issue: Whether of not the uni on may val i dl y check-off the 10% of the economi c benefi ts of the uni on members for
attorney’s fees even wi th out i ndi vi dual consent.

Rul i ng: Arti cl e 222(b) states:
No attorney's fees, negoti ati on fees or si mi l ar charges of any ki nd ari si ng from any col l ecti ve bargai ni ng
negoti ati ons or concl usi on of the col l ecti ve agreement shal l be i mposed on any i ndi vi dual member of the
contracti ng uni on: Provi ded, however, that attorney's fees may be charged agai nst uni ons funds i n an amount to
be agreed upon by the parti es. Any contract, agreement or arrangement of any sort to the contrary shal l be nul l
and voi d.
Arti cl e 222(b) of the Labor Code, as amended, prohi bi ts the payment of attorney's fees onl y when i t i s
effected through forced contri buti ons from the empl oyees from thei rown funds as di sti ngui shed from uni on
funds.
[49]
Hence, the general rul e i s that attorney’s fees, negoti ati on fees, and other si mi l ar charges may onl y be
col l ected from uni on funds, not from the amounts that pertai n to i ndi vi dual uni on members. As an excepti on to
the general rul e, speci al assessments or other extraordi nary fees may be l evi ed upon or checked off from any
amount due an empl oyee for as l ong as there i s proper authori zati on by the empl oyee.
The Court fi nds that, i n the i nstant case, the P42 mi l l i on economi c benefi ts package granted by UST di d
not consti tute uni on funds from whence the P4.2 mi l l i on coul d have been val i dl y deducted as attorney’s
fees. The P42 mi l l i on economi c benefi ts package was not i ntended for the USTFU coffers, but for al l the members
of the bargai ni ng uni t USTFU represented, whether members or non-members of the uni on. A cl ose readi ng of the
terms of the MOA reveal s that after the sati sfacti on of the outstandi ng obl i gati ons of UST under the 1986 CBA, the
bal ance of the P42 mi l l i on was to be di stri buted to the covered facul ty members of the col l ecti ve bargai ni ng uni t in
the form of sal ary i ncreases, returns on paycheck deducti ons; and i ncreases i n hospi tal i zati on, educati onal , and
reti rement benefi ts, and other economi c benefi ts. The deducti on of the P4.2 mi l l i on, as al l eged attorney’s/agency
fees, from the P42 mi l l i on economi c benefi ts package effecti vel y decreased the share from sai d package accrui ng
to each member of the col l ecti ve bargai ni ng uni t.


18. Verceles v. Bureau of Labor Relations-DOLE, G.R. No. 152322, February 15, 2005
Facts: On 09 October 1997, Ernesto Vercel es , i n hi s capaci ty as presi dent of the associ ati on, through a
Memorandum, i nformed Rodel Dal upan, et al., that thei r membershi p i n the associ ati on has been suspended and
shal l take effect i mmedi atel y upon recei pt thereof. Vercel es sai d he was acti ng upon the di sci pl i nary commi ttee’s
fi ndi ng of a prima facie case agai nst them.
[8]
Respondent Ri cardo Uy al so recei ved a si mi l ar memorandum on 03
November 1997.
[9]

On 01 December 1997, a compl ai nt
[10]
for i l l egal suspensi on, wi l l ful and unl awful vi ol ati on of UEEA
consti tuti on and by-l aws, refusal to render fi nanci al and other reports, del i berate refusal to cal l general and special
meeti ngs, i l l egal hol dover of terms and damages was fi l ed by the respondents agai nst herei n peti ti oners Ernesto C.
Vercel es, Di osdado F. Tri ni dad, Sal vador G. Bl anci a, Rosemari e De Lumban, Fel i ci tas Ramos, Mi guel Teaño, Jai me
Bauti sta and Fi del Acero before the Department of Labor and Empl oyment, Nati onal Capi tal Regi on (DOLE-NCR).

Issue: whether or not the non-hol di ng of meeti ngs and non-submi ssi on of reports by the peti ti oners moot and
academi c, and whether the deci si on to hol d meeti ngs and submi t reports contradi ct and overri de the soverei gn
wi l l of the majori ty?

Rul i ng: Peti ti oners do not hi de the fact that they bel atedl y submi tted thei r fi nanci al reports and the mi nutes of
thei r meeti ngs to the DOLE. The i ssue of bel atedl y submi tti ng these reports, accordi ng to the peti ti oners, had
been rendered moot and academi c by thei r eventual compl i ance. Besi des, thi s has been the practi ce of the
associ ati on.
[52]
Moreover, the peti ti oners l i kewi se mai ntai n that the passage of General Assembl y Resol uti on No.
10 dated 10 December 1997 and Resol uti on No. 8, Seri es of 2000, fol l owi ng the appl i cati on of the pri nci pl e that
the soverei gn majori ty rul es, cured any l i abi l i ty that may have been brought about by thei r bel ated acti ons.
[53]

The passage of General Assembl y Resol uti on No. 10 dated 10 December 1997 and Resol uti on No. 8, Seri es
of 2000,
[55]
whi ch supposedl y cured the l apses commi tted by the association’s offi cers and rei terated the approval
of the general membershi p of the acts and col l ateral acti ons of the associ ati on’s offi cers cannot redeem the
peti ti oners from thei r predi cament. The obl i gati on to hol d meeti ngs and render fi nanci al reports i s mandated by
UEEA’s consti tuti on and by-l aws. Thi s fact was never deni ed by the peti ti oners. Thei r eventual compl i ance, as
what happened i n thi s case, shal l not rel ease them from the obl i gati on to accompl i sh these thi ngs i n the future.
Prompt compl i ance i n renderi ng fi nanci al reports together wi th the hol di ng of regul ar meeti ngs wi th the
submi ssi on of the mi nutes thereon wi th the BLR-DOLE and DOLE-NCR shal l negate any suspi ci on of di s honesty on
the part of UEEA’s offi cers. Thi s i s not onl y true wi th UEEA, but l i kewi se wi th other uni ons/associ ati ons, as thi s
matter i s i mbued wi th publ i c i nterest. Undeni abl y, transparency i n the offi ci al undertaki ngs of uni on offi cers wi l l
bol ster genui ne trade uni oni sm i n the country.


19. Internat’l School Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing, G.R. No. 128845, June 1, 2000

Facts: The School grants forei gn-hi res certai n benefi ts not accorded l ocal -hi res. These i ncl ude housi ng,
transportati on, shi ppi ng costs, taxes, and home l eave travel al l owance. Forei gn-hi res are al so pai d a sal ary rate
twenty-fi ve percent (25%) more than l ocal -hi res. The School justi fi es the di fference on two "si gni fi cant economi c
di sadvantages" forei gn-hi res have to endure, namel y: (a) the "di sl ocati on factor" and (b) l i mi ted tenure.

Issue: Whether or not i t i s val i d to pay the forei gn hi red teacher hi gher than the l ocal hi red teacher.

Rul i ng: The foregoi ng provi si ons i mpregnabl y i nsti tuti onal i ze i n thi s juri sdi cti on the l ong honored l egal trui sm of
"equal pay for equal work." Persons who work wi th substanti al l y equal qual i fi cati ons, ski l l , effort and
responsi bi l i ty, under si mi l ar condi ti ons, shoul d be pai d si mi l ar sal ari es.
[22]
Thi s rul e appl i es to the School , i ts
"i nternati onal character" notwi thstandi ng.
The empl oyer i n thi s case has fai l ed to di scharge thi s burden. There i s no evi dence here that forei gn-hi res perform
25% more effi ci entl y or effecti vel y than the l ocal -hi res. Both groups have si mi l ar functi ons and responsi bi l i ti es,
whi ch they perform under si mi l ar worki ng condi ti ons.
The School cannot i nvoke the need to enti ce forei gn-hi res to l eave thei r domi ci l e to rati onal i ze the
di sti ncti on i n sal ary rates wi thout vi ol ati ng the pri nci pl e of equal work for equal pay.
A bargaining unit i s "a group of empl oyees of a gi ven empl oyer, compri sed of al l or l ess than al l of the
enti re body of empl oyees, consi stent wi th equi ty to the empl oyer i ndi cate to be the best sui ted to serve the
reci procal ri ghts and duti es of the parti es under the col l ecti ve bargai ni ng provi si ons of the l aw."
[29]
The factors i n
determi ni ng the appropri ate col l ecti ve bargai ni ng uni t are (1) the wi l l of the empl oyees (Gl obe Doctri ne); (2)
affi ni ty and uni ty of the empl oyees' i nterest, such as substanti al si mi l ari ty of work and duti es, or si mi l ari ty of
compensati on and worki ng condi ti ons (Substanti al Mutual Interests Rul e); (3) pri or col l ecti ve bargai ni ng hi story;
and (4) si mi l arity of empl oyment status.
[30]
The basi c test of an asserted bargai ni ng uni t's acceptabi l i ty i s whether
or not i t i s fundamental l y the combi nati on whi ch wi l l best assure to al l empl oyees the exerci se of thei r col l ecti ve
bargai ni ng ri ghts.
[31]

It does not appear that forei gn-hi res have i ndi cated thei r i ntenti on to be grouped together wi th l ocal -
hi res for purposes of col l ecti ve bargai ni ng. The col l ecti ve bargai ni ng hi story i n the School al so shows that t hese
groups were al ways treated separatel y. Forei gn-hi res have l i mi ted tenure; l ocal -hi res enjoy securi ty of tenure.
Al though forei gn-hi res perform si mi l ar functi ons under the same worki ng condi ti ons as the l ocal -hi res, forei gn-
hi res are accorded certai n benefi ts not granted to l ocal -hi res. These benefi ts, such as housi ng, transportati on,
shi ppi ng costs, taxes, and home l eave travel al l owance, are reasonabl y rel ated to thei r status as forei gn-hi res, and
justi fy the excl usi on of the former from the l atter. To i ncl ude forei gn-hi res i n a bargai ni ng uni t wi th l ocal -hi res
woul d not assure ei ther group the exerci se of thei r respecti ve col l ecti ve bargai ni ng ri ghts.


20. Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corp. v. Sec. of Labor, G.R. No. 162355, August 14, 2009

Facts: Thi s i s a peti ti on for revi ew
[1]
assailing the Deci si on
[2]
promul gated on 14 August 2003 as wel l as the
Resol uti on
[3]
promul gated on 24 February 2004 of the Court of Appeal s (appel l ate court) i n CA-G.R. SP No.
77015. The appel l ate court deni ed Sta. Luci a East Commerci al Corporati on’s (SLECC) peti ti on for certi orari
wi th prayer for wri t of prel i mi nary i njuncti on and temporary restrai ni ng order. The appel l ate court
further rul ed that the Secretary of Labor and Empl oyment (Secretary) was correct when she hel d that the
subsequent negoti ati ons and regi strati on of a col l ecti ve bargai ni ng agreement (CBA) executed by SLECC
wi th Samahang Manggagawa sa Sta. Luci a East Commerci al (SMSLEC) coul d not bar Sta. Luci a East
Commerci al Corporati on Workers Associ ati on’s (SLECCWA) peti ti on for di rect certi fi cati on.
On 10 October 2001, [CLUP-SLECC and i ts Affi l i ates Workers Uni on] reorgani zed i tsel f and re-
regi stered as CLUP-Sta. Luci a East Commerci al Corporati on Workers Associ ati on (herei n appel l ant CLUP-
SLECCWA), l i mi ti ng i ts membershi p to the rank-and-fi l e empl oyees of Sta. Luci a East Commerci al
Corporati on. It was i ssued Certi fi cate of Creati on of a Local Chapter No. RO400-0110-CC-004.
On the same date, [CLUP-SLECCWA] fi l ed the i nstant peti ti on. It al l eged that [SLECC] empl oys about 115
empl oyees and that more than 20% of empl oyees bel ongi ng to the rank-and-fi l e category are i ts members. [CLUP-
SLECCWA] cl ai med that no certi fi cati on el ecti on has been hel d among them wi thi n the l ast 12 months pri or to the
fi l i ng of the peti ti on, and whi l e there i s another uni on regi stered wi th DOLE-Regi onal Offi ce No. IV on 22 June 2001
coveri ng the same empl oyees, namel y [SMSLEC], i t has not been recogni zed as the excl usi ve bargai ni ng agent of
[SLECC’s] empl oyees.
In the meanti me, on 19 December 2001, [CLUP-SLECCWA] fi l ed i ts Opposi ti on and Comment to [SLECC’S]
Moti on to Di smi ss. It assai l ed the val i di ty of the vol untary recogni ti on of [SMSLEC] by [SLECC] and thei r
consequent negoti ati ons and executi on of a CBA. Accordi ng to [CLUP-SLECCWA], the same were tai nted wi th
mal i ce, col l usi on and conspi racy i nvol vi ng some offi ci al s of the Regi onal Offi ce. Appel l ant contended that Chi ef
LEO Raymundo Agravante, DOLE Regi onal Offi ce No. IV, Labor Rel ati ons Di vi si on shoul d have not approved and
recorded the vol untary recogni ti on of [SMSLEC] by [SLECC] because i t vi ol ated one of the major requi rements for
vol untary recogni ti on, i .e., non-exi stence of another l abor organi zati on i n the same bargai ni ng uni t. It poi nted out
that the ti me of the vol untary recogni ti on on 20 Jul y 2001, appel l ant’s regi strati on as [CLUP-SLECC and i ts Affi l i ates
Workers Uni on], whi ch covers the same group of empl oyees covered by Samahang Manggagawa sa Sta. Luci a East
Commerci al , was exi sti ng and has nei ther been cancel l ed or abandoned. [CLUP-SLECCWA] al so accused Med-
Arbi ter Bacti n of mal i ce, col l usi on and conspi racy wi th appel l ee company when he di smi ssed the peti ti on for
certi fi cati on el ecti on fi l ed by [SMSLEC] for bei ng moot and academi c because of i ts vol untary recogni ti on, when he
was ful l y aware of the pendency of [CLUP-SLECCWA’s] earl i er peti ti on for certi fi cati on el ecti on.

Issue: Whether or not SLECC’s vol untary recogni ti on of SMSLEC was val i dl y done whi l e a l egi ti mate l abor
organi zati on was i n exi stence i n the bargai ni ng uni t.

Rul i ng: A bargaining unit i s a “group of empl oyees of a gi ven empl oyer, compri sed of al l or l ess than al l of
the enti re body of empl oyees, consi stent wi th equi ty to the empl oyer, i ndi cated to be the best sui ted to
serve the reci procal ri ghts and duti es of the parti es under the col l ecti ve bargai ning provi si ons of the l aw.”
The fundamental factors i n determi ni ng the appropri ate col l ecti ve bargai ni ng uni t are: (1) the
wi l l of the empl oyees (Gl obe Doctri ne); (2) affi ni ty and uni ty of the empl oyees’ i nterest, such as
substanti al si mi l ari ty of work and duti es, or si mi l ari ty of compensati on and worki ng condi ti ons
(Substanti al Mutual Interests Rul e); (3) pri or col l ecti ve bargai ni ng hi story; and (4) si mi l ari ty of
empl oyment status.
Contrary to peti ti oner’s asserti on, thi s Court has categori cal l y rul ed that the exi stence of a pri or col l ecti ve
bargai ni ng hi story i s neither decisive nor conclusive i n the determi nati on of what consti tutes an appropri ate
bargai ni ng uni t.
The i ncl usi on i n the uni on of di squal i fi ed empl oyees i s not among the grounds for cancel l ati on of
regi strati on, unl ess such i ncl usi on i s due to mi srepresentati on, fal se statement or fraud under the ci rcumstances
enumerated i n Secti ons (a) to (c) of Arti cl e 239 of the Labor Code.[10] THUS, CLUP-SLECC AND ITS AFFILIATES
WORKERS UNION, HAVING BEEN VALIDLY ISSUED A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS
HAVING ACQUIRED JURIDICAL PERSONALITY WHICH MAY NOT BE ATTACKED COLLATERALLY. THE PROPER
PROCEDURE FOR SLECC IS TO FILE A PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION[11] OF CLUP-
SLECC AND ITS AFFILIATES WORKERS UNION AND NOT TO IMMEDIATELY COMMENCE VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION
PROCEEDINGS WITH SMSLEC.
The empl oyer may vol untari l y recogni ze the representati on status of a uni on
i n unorganized establ i shments.[12] SLECC WAS NOT AN UNORGANIZED ESTABLISHMENT WHEN IT VOLUNTARILY
RECOGNIZED SMSLEC AS ITS EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE ON 20 JULY 2001. CLUP-SLECC AND ITS
AFFILIATES WORKERS UNION FILED A PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION ELECTION ON 27 FEBRUARY 2001 AND THIS
PETITION REMAINED PENDING AS OF 20 JULY 2001. THUS, SLECC’S VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION OF SMSLEC ON 20
JULY 2001, THE SUBSEQUENT NEGOTIATIONS AND RESULTING REGISTRATION OF A CBA EXECUTED BY SLECC AND
SMSLEC ARE VOID AND CANNOT BAR CLUP-SLECCWA’S PRESENT PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION ELECTION.


21. Holy Child Catholic School v. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 179146, July 23, 2013

Facts: On May 31, 2002, a peti ti on for certi fi cati on el ecti on was fi l ed by pri vate respondent Pi nag-Isang Ti ni g at
Lakas ng Anakpawi s – Hol y Chi l d Cathol i c School Teachers and Empl oyees Labor Uni on (HCCS-TELUPIGLAS), al l eging
that: PIGLAS i s a l egi ti mate l abor organi zati on dul y regi stered wi th the Department of Labor and Empl oyment
(DOLE) representi ng HCCS-TELU-PIGLAS; HCCS i s a pri vate educati onal i nsti tuti on dul y regi stered and operati ng
under Phi l i ppi ne l aws; there are approxi matel y one hundred twenty (120) teachers and empl oyees compri si ng the
proposed appropri ate bargai ni ng uni t; and HCCS i s unorgani zed, there i s no col l ecti ve bargai ni ng agreement or a
dul y certi fi ed bargai ni ng agent or a l abor organi zati on certi fi ed as the sol e and excl usi ve bargai ni ng agent of the
proposed bargai ni ng uni t wi thi n one year pri or to the fi l i ng of the peti ti on.
6
Among the documents attached to the
peti ti on were the certi fi cate of affi l i ati on wi th Pi nag-Isang Ti ni g at Lakas ng Anakpawi s Kri sti yanong Al yansa ng
Makabayang Obrero (PIGLAS-KAMAO) i ssued by the Bureau of Labor Rel ati ons (BLR), charter certi fi cate i ssued by
PIGLASKAMAO, and certi fi cate of regi strati on of HCCS-TELU as a l egi ti mate l abor organi zati on i ssued by the DOLE.
7

Peti ti oner HCCS consi stentl y noted that i t i s a parochi al school wi th a total of 156 empl oyees as of June
28, 2002, broken down as fol l ows: ni nety-ei ght (98) teachi ng personnel , twenty-fi ve (25) non-teachi ng academi c
empl oyees, and thi rty-three (33) non-teachi ng non-academi c workers. It averred that of the empl oyees who si gned
to support the peti ti on, fourteen (14) al ready resi gned and si x (6) si gned twi ce. Peti ti oner rai sed that members of
pri vate respondent do not bel ong to the same cl ass; i t i s not onl y a mi xture of manageri al , supervi sory, and rank-
and-fi l e empl oyees – as three (3) are vi ce-pri nci pal s, one (1) i s a department head/supervi sor, and el even (11) are
coordi nators – but al so a combi nati on of teachi ng and non-teachi ng personnel – as twenty-seven (27) are non-
teachi ng personnel . It i nsi sted that, for not bei ng i n accord wi th Arti cl e 245
10
of the Labor Code, pri vate
respondent i s an i l l egi ti mate l abor organi zati on l acki ng i n personal i ty to fi l e a peti ti on for certi fi cati on el ecti on,

Issue: Whether or not there the respondent i s an i l l egi ti mate l abor organi zati on for l acki ng i n personal i ty to fi l e a
peti ti on for certi fi cati on el ecti on on the ground of i mproper mi xture of teachi ng and non-teachi ng personnel i n
pri vate respondent due to the absence of mutual i ty of i nterest among i ts members .

Rul i ng: , A bargai ni ng uni t has been defi ned as a "group of empl oyees of a gi ven empl oyer, compri sed of al l or l ess
than al l of the enti re body of empl oyees, whi ch the col l ecti ve i nterests of al l the empl oyees, consi stent wi th equi ty
to the empl oyer, i ndi cated to be best sui ted to serve reci procal ri ghts and duti es of the parti es under the col l ecti ve
bargai ni ng provi si ons of the l aw."
55
In determi ni ng the proper col l ecti ve bargai ni ng uni t and what uni t woul d be
appropri ate to be the col l ecti ve bargai ning agency, the Court, i n the semi nal case of Democrati c Labor Associ ati on
v. Cebu Stevedori ng Company, Inc.,
56
menti oned several factors that shoul d be consi dered, to wi t: (1) wi l l of
empl oyees (Gl obe Doctri ne); (2) affi ni ty and uni ty of empl oyees' i nterest, such as substanti al simi larity of work and
duti es, or si mi l ari ty of compensati on and worki ng condi ti ons; (3) pri or col l ecti ve bargai ni ng hi story; and (4)
empl oyment status, such as temporary, seasonal and probati onary empl oyees. We stressed, however, that the test
of the groupi ng i s communi ty or mutual i ty of i nterest, because "the basi c test of an asserted bargai ni ng uni t's
acceptabi l i ty i s whether or not i t i s fundamental l y the combi nati on whi ch wi l l best assure to al l empl oyees the
exerci se of thei r col l ecti ve bargai ni ng ri ghts.
The teachi ng and non-teachi ng personnel of peti ti oner school must form separate bargai ni ng
uni ts.1âwphi1 Thus, the order for the conduct of two separate certi fi cati on el ecti ons, one i nvol vi ng teachi ng
personnel and the other i nvol vi ng non-teachi ng personnel . It shoul d be stressed that i n the subject peti ti on,
pri vate respondent uni on sought the conduct of a certi fi cati on el ecti on among al l the rank-and-fi l e personnel of
peti ti oner school .


22. LEGEND INTERNATIONAL RESORTS LIMITED vs. KILUSANG MANGGAGAWA NG LEGENDA (KML-
INDEPENDENT)
G.R. No. 169754 February 23, 2011

FACTS: On June 6, 2001, KML fi l ed wi th the Med-Arbi trati on Uni t of the DOLE, San Fernando, Pampanga, a Peti ti on
for Certi fi cati on El ecti on. KML al l eged that i t i s a l egi ti mate l abor organi zati on of the rank and fi l e empl oyees of
Legend Internati onal Resorts Li mi ted (LEGEND). LEGEND moved to di smi ss the peti ti on al l egi ng that KML i s not a
l egi ti mate l abor organi zati on because i ts membershi p i s a mi xture of rank and fi l e and supervi sory empl oyees i n
vi ol ati on of Arti cl e 245 of the Labor Code. On August 24, 2001, LEGEND fi l ed a Peti ti on for Cancel l ati on of Uni on
Regi strati on of KML.

On September 20, 2001, the Med-Arbi ter rendered judgment di smi ssi ng for l ack of meri t the peti ti on for
certi fi cati on el ecti on. KML thus appeal ed to the Offi ce of the Secretary of the DOLE whi ch reverse and set asi de
the Med-Arbi ter’s Deci si on and order the conduct of certi fi cati on el ecti on.

ISSUE: Whether the Peti ti on to cancel /revoke regi strati on i s a prejudi ci al questi on to the peti ti on for certi fi cati on
el ecti on

RULING: No. It i s cl ear that a certi fi cati on el ecti on may be conducted duri ng the pendency of the cancel l ati on
proceedi ngs. Thi s i s because at the ti me the peti ti on for certi fi cati on was fi l ed, the peti ti oni ng uni on i s presumed
to possess the l egal personal i ty to fi l e the same. There i s therefore no basi s for LEGEND’s asserti on that the
cancel l ati on of KML’s certi fi cate of regi strati on shoul d retroact to the ti me of i ts i ssuance or that i t effecti vel y
nul l i fi ed al l of KML’s acti vi ti es, i ncl udi ng i ts fi l i ng of the peti ti on for certi fi cati on el ecti on and i ts demand to
col l ecti vel y bargai n.

The l egi ti macy of the l egal personal ity of KML cannot be col l aterall y attacked i n a peti ti on for certi fi cati on el ecti on.


23. CATALINO ALGIRE et al. vs. REGALADO DE MESA, et al.
G.R. No. 97622 October 19, 1994

FACTS: The case arose out of the el ecti on of the ri ghtful offi cers to represent the uni on i n the Col l ecti ve Bargai ni ng
Agreement (CBA) wi th the management of Uni versal Robi na Texti l e at i ts pl ant i n Km. 50, Bo. San Cri stobal ,
Cal amba, Laguna.

Uni versal Robi na Texti l e Monthl y Sal ari ed Empl oyees Uni on, (URTMSEU), through pri vate respondent Regal ado de
Mesa, fi l ed on September 4, 1990 a peti ti on for the hol di ng of an el ecti on of uni on offi cers wi th the Arbi trati on
Branch of the Department of Labor and Empl oyment (DOLE). In the pre-el ecti on conference, i t was agreed that the
el ecti on by secret bal l ot be conducted on November 15, 1990 between peti ti oners (Catal i no Al gi re, et al .) and
pri vate respondents (Regal ado de Mesa, et al .) under the supervi si on of DOLE through i ts dul y appoi nted
representati on offi cer.

The resul ts of the el ecti on were as fol l ows: Li no Al gi re group—133; Regal ado de Mesa—133; and Spoi l ed—6.

ISSUE: Whether the el ecti on conducted was a certi fi cati on el ecti on?

RULING: No. It i s unmi stakabl e that the el ecti on hel d on November 15, 1990 was a consent el ecti on and not a
certi fi cati on el ecti on. It was an agreed one, the purpose bei ng merel y to determi ne the i ssue of majori ty
representati on of al l the workers i n the appropri ate col l ecti ve bargaining uni t. It i s a separate and di sti nct process
and has nothi ng to do wi th the i mport and effort of a certi fi cati on el ecti on.


24. WARREN MANUFACTURING WORKERS UNION (WMWU) vs. THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS;
PHILIPPINE AGRICULTURAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL WORKERS UNION (PACIWU), et al.
G.R. No. 76185 March 30, 1988


FACTS: On June 13, 1985, PACIWU fi l ed a peti ti on for certi fi cati on el ecti on, al l egi ng compl i ance wi th the
juri sdictional requi rements. On Jul y 7, 1985, the company thru counsel fi l ed a moti on to di smi ss the peti ti on on the
ground that there exi st a CBA between the company and the Warren Mfg. Uni on whi ch took effect upon i ts si gni ng
on Jul y 16, 1985 and to expi re on Jul y 31, 1986. PACIWU and WMWU agreed to a consent el ecti on to determi ne
the i ssue of majori ty representati on of rank and fi l e workers of the company. On August 25, 1985, sai d consent
el ecti on was hel d, and yi el ded the fol l owi ng resul ts: PACIWU-94 and WMWU-193.

On June 5, 1986, the PACIWU fi l ed a peti ti on for certi fi cati on el ecti on fol l owed by the fi l i ng of a peti ti on for the
same purposes by the Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Warren Manufacturi ng Corporati on-Al liance of Nati onal i st and
Genui ne Labor Organi zati ons whi ch peti ti ons were both opposed by Warren Manufacturi ng Corporati on on the
grounds that nei ther peti ti on has 30% support; that both are barred by the one-year no certi fi cati on el ecti on l aw
and the exi stence of a dul y rati fi ed CBA.

ISSUE: Whether the one-year no certi fi cati on el ecti on rul e and the pri nci pl e of the Contract Bar Rul e appl i cabl e i n
the case at bar.

RULING: No. The records show that peti ti oner admi tted that what was hel d on August 25,1985 at the Company's
premi ses and whi ch became the root of thi s controversy, was a consent el ecti on and not a certi fi cati on el ecti on. As
correctl y di sti ngui shed by pri vate respondent, a consent el ecti on i s an agreed one, i ts purpose bei ng merel y to
determi ne the i ssue of majori ty representati on of al l the workers i n the appropri ate col l ecti ve bargai ni ng uni t
whi l e a certi fi cati on el ecti on i s ai med at determi ni ng the sol e and excl usi ve bargai ni ng agent of al l the empl oyees
i n an appropri ate bargai ni ng uni t for the purpose of col l ecti ve bargai ni ng. From the very nature of consent
el ecti on, i t i s a separate and di sti nct process and has nothi ng to do wi th the i mport and effect of a certi fi cati on
el ecti on. Nei ther does i t shorten the terms of an exi sti ng CBA nor enti tl e the parti ci pants thereof to i mmedi atel y
renegoti ate an exi sti ng CBA al though i t does not precl ude the workers from exerci si ng thei r ri ght to choose thei r
sol e and excl usi ve bargai ni ng representati ve after the expi rati on of the si xty (60) day freedom peri od.


25. UST FACULTY UNION (USTFU), GIL Y. GAMILLA et al. vs. Dir. BENEDICTO ERNESTO R. BITONIO JR. of the
Bureau of Labor Relations, Med-Arbiter TOMAS F. FALCONITIN of The National Capital Region, Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE), EDUARDO J. MARIÑO JR. et al.
G.R. No. 131235 November 16, 1999

FACTS: Mari no, et. al . are dul y el ected offi cers of the UST Facul ty Uni on (USTFU). The uni on has a subsi sti ng fi ve-
year Col l ecti ve Bargai ni ng Agreement wi th i ts empl oyer, the Uni versi ty of Santo Tomas (UST). It i s set to expi re on
31 May 1998.

On 21 September 1996, Col l antes, i n her capaci ty as Secretary General of USTFU, posted a noti ce addressed to al l
USTFU members announci ng a general assembl y to be hel d on 05 October 1996 to el ect USTFU's next set of
offi cers.

On 01 October 1996, GAMILLA et al . fi l ed a peti ti on wi th the Med-Arbi ter, DOLE-NCR al l egi ng that the COMELEC
was not consti tuted i n accordance wi th USTFU's consti tuti on and by-l aws (CBL) and that no rul es had been i ssued
to govern the conduct of the 05 October 1996 el ecti on.

On 02 October 1996, the secretary general of UST, upon the request of the vari ous UST facul ty cl ub presi dents
i ssued noti ces al l owi ng al l facul ty members to hol d a convocati on on 04 October 1996. Denomi nated as general
facul ty assembl y, the convocati on was supposed to di scuss the "state of the unrati fi ed UST-USTFU CBA" and
"status and el ecti on of USTFU offi cers".

On 04 October 1996, the med-arbi ter i ssued a temporary restrai ni ng order agai nst herei n enjoi ni ng them from
conducti ng the el ecti on schedul ed on 05 October 1996.

Al so on 04 October 1996, and as earl i er announced by the UST secretary general , the general facul ty assembl y was
hel d as schedul ed. The general assembl y was attended by members of the USTFU and by "non-USTFU members’
who are members i n good standi ng of the UST Academi c Communi ty Col l ecti ve Bargai ni ng Uni t". On thi s occasi on,
appel l ants were el ected as USTFU's new set of offi cers by accl amati on and cl appi ng of hands.

The el ecti on of the appel l ants came about upon a moti on of one Atty. Lopez, admi ttedl y not a member of USTFU,
that the USTFU CBL and "the rul es of the el ecti on be suspended and that the el ecti on be hel d [on] that day".

On 11 October 1996, GAMILLA et al . fi l ed the i nstant peti ti on seeki ng i njuncti ve rel i efs and the nul l i fi cati on of the
resul ts of the 04 October 1996 el ecti on. They al l eged that the hol di ng of the same vi ol ated the temporary
restrai ni ng order and for bei ng vi ol ati ve of USTFU's CBL, speci fi cal l y because the general assembl y resul ti ng i n the
el ecti on of appel l ants was not cal l ed by the Board of Offi cers of the USTFU; there was no compl i ance wi th the ten-
day noti ce rul e requi red by Secti on 1, Arti cl e VIII of the CBL; the supposed el ecti ons were conducted wi thout a
COMELEC bei ng consti tuted by the Board of Offi cers i n accordance wi th Secti on 1, Arti cl e IX of the CBL; the
el ecti ons were not by secret bal l oti ng as requi red by Secti on 1, Arti cl e V and Secti on 6, Arti cl e IX of the CBL, and,
the general assembl y was convened by facul ty members some of whom were not members of USTFU, so much so
that non-USTFU members were al l owed to vote i n vi ol ati on of Secti on 1, Arti cl e V of the CBL.

ISSUE: Whether the el ecti on conducted i s a uni on el ecti on or certi fi cati on el ecti on.

RULING: Nei ther. A uni on el ecti on i s hel d pursuant to the uni on's consti tuti on and byl aws, and the ri ght to vote i n
i t i s enjoyed onl y by uni on members. A uni on el ecti on shoul d be di sti ngui shed from a certi fi cati on el ecti on, whi ch
i s the process of determi ni ng, through secret bal l ot, the sol e and excl usi ve bargai ni ng agent of the empl oyees i n
the appropri ate bargai ning uni t, for purposes of col l ecti ve bargai ning. 18 Speci fi cally, the purpose of a certi fi cati on
el ecti on i s to ascertai n whether or not a majori ty of the empl oyees wi sh to be represented by a l abor organi zati on
and, i n the affi rmati ve case, by whi ch parti cul ar l abor organi zati on. 19

In a certi fi cati on el ecti on, al l empl oyees bel ongi ng to the appropri ate bargai ni ng uni t can vote. 20 Therefore, a
uni on member who l i kewi se bel ongs to the appropri ate bargai ni ng uni t i s enti tl ed to vote i n sai d el ecti on.
However, the reverse i s not al ways true; an empl oyee bel ongi ng to the appropri ate bargai ni ng uni t but who i s not
a member of the uni on cannot vote i n the uni on el ecti on, unl ess otherwi se authori zed by the consti tuti on and
byl aws of the uni on. Veri l y, uni on affai rs and el ecti ons cannot be deci ded i n a non-uni on acti vi ty.

In both el ecti ons, there are procedures to be fol l owed. Thus, the October 4, 1996 el ecti on cannot properl y be
cal l ed a uni on el ecti on, because the procedure l ai d down i n the USTFU's CBL for the el ecti on of offi cers was not
fol l owed. It coul d not have been a certi fi cati on el ecti on ei ther, because representati on was not the i ssue, and the
proper procedure for such el ecti on was not fol l owed. The parti ci pati on of non-uni on members i n the el ecti on
aggravated i ts i rregul ari ty.


26. ORIENTAL TIN CAN AND METAL SHEET MANUFACTURING CO., INC. vs.HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA
G.R. No. 116779 August 28, 1998

FACTS: On March 3, 1994, Ori ental Ti n Can and Metal Sheet Manufacturi ng Company, Inc. (the company) entered
i nto a col l ecti ve bargai ni ng agreement (CBA) wi th Ori ental Ti n Can Labor Uni on (OTCLU) as the exi sti ng CBA was
due to expi re on Apri l 15, 1994. Four days l ater, 248 of the company's rank-and-fi l e empl oyees authori zed the
Federati on of Free Workers (FFW) to fi l e a peti ti on for certi fi cati on el ecti on. On March 10, 1994, however, thi s
peti ti on was repudi ated vi a a wri tten wai ver by 115 of the si gnatori es who, al ong wi th other empl oyees total i ng
897, rati fi ed the CBA on the same date.

On March 18, 1994 Ori ental Ti n Can Workers Uni on — Federati on of Free Workers (OTCWU-FFW) fi l ed a peti ti on
for certi fi cati on el ecti on wi th the Nati onal Capi tal Regi on offi ce of the Department of Labor and Empl oyment
(DOLE), pursuant to Arti cl e 256 of the Labor Code. Purporti ng to represent the regul ar rank-and-fi l e empl oyees of
the company, the peti ti on was accompani ed by the "authenti c si gnatures" of 25% of the empl oyees/workers i n the
bargai ni ng uni t.

The OTCLU fi l ed a mani festati on and moti on on Apri l 15, 1994, prayi ng for the di smi ssal of the peti ti on for
certi fi cati on el ecti on on the ground that i t was not endorsed by at l east 25% of the empl oyees of the bargai ni ng
uni t. Some of the empl oyees who i ni ti ally si gned the peti ti on had al l egedl y wi thdrawn i n wri ti ng such support pri or
to the fi l i ng of the same.

ISSUE: Whether the certi fi cati on el ecti on i s necessary i n the case at bar.

RULING: Yes. The Labor Code i mposes upon the empl oyer and the representati ve of the empl oyees the duty to
bargai n col l ecti vel y. Si nce the questi on of ri ght of representati on as between competi ng l abor organi zati ons i n a
bargai ni ng uni t i s i mbued wi th publ i c i nterest, the l aw governs the choi ce of a col l ecti ve bargai ni ng representati ve
whi ch shal l be the dul y certi fi ed agent of the empl oyees concerned. An offi ci al certi fi cati on becomes necessary
where the bargai ning agent fai l s to present adequate and reasonabl e proof of i ts majori ty authori zati on and where
the empl oyer demands i t, or when the empl oyer honestl y doubts the majori ty representati on of several
contendi ng bargai ni ng groups. In fact, Arti cl e 255 of the Labor Code al l ows the majori ty of the empl oyees i n an
appropri ate col l ecti ve bargai ni ng uni t to desi gnate or sel ect the l abor organi zati on whi ch shal l be thei r excl usi ve
representati ve for the purpose of col l ecti ve bargai ni ng.

The desi gnati on or sel ecti on of the bargai ni ng representati ve wi thout, however, goi ng through the process set out
by l aw for the conduct of a certi fi cati on el ecti on appl i es onl y when representati on i s not i n i ssue. There i s no
probl em i f a uni on i s unani mousl y chosen by a majori ty of the empl oyees as thei r bargai ni ng representati ve, but a
questi on of representati on ari si ng from the presence of more than one uni on i n a bargai ning uni t aspi ring to be the
empl oyees' representati ve, can onl y be resol ved by hol di ng a certi fi cati on el ecti on under the supervi si on of the
proper government authori ty. Thus:

It bears stressi ng that no obstacl e must be pl aced to the hol di ng of certi fi cati on el ecti ons, for i t i s a statutory pol i cy
that shoul d not be ci rcumvented. We have hel d that whenever there i s doubt as to whether a parti cul ar uni on
represents the majori ty of the rank-and-fi l e empl oyees, i n the absence of a l egal i mpedi ment, the hol di ng of a
certi fi cati on el ecti on i s the most democrati c method of determi ni ng the empl oyees' choi ce of thei r bargai ni ng
representati ve. It i s the appropri ate means whereby controversi es and di sputes on representati on may be l ai d to
rest, by the unequi vocal vote of the empl oyees themsel ves. Indeed, i t i s the keystone of i ndustri al democracy.


27. NUWHRAINvs.SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
G.R. No. 181531 Jul y 31, 2009

FACTS:A certi fi cati on el ecti on was conducted on June 16, 2006 among the rank-and-fi l e empl oyees of respondent
Hol i day Inn Mani l a Pavi l i on Hotel (the Hotel ) wi th the fol l owi ng resul ts:

EMPLOYEES IN VOTERS’ LIST = 353
TOTAL VOTES CAST = 346
NUWHRAIN-MPHC = 151
HIMPHLU = 169
NO UNION = 1
SPOILED = 3
SEGREGATED = 22

In vi ew of the si gni fi cant number of segregated votes, contendi ng uni ons, Nati onal Uni on of Workers i n Hotel s,
Restaurants and Al l i ed Industri es – Mani l a Pavi l i on Hotel Chapter (NUHWHRAIN-MPHC), and Hol i day Inn Mani l a
Pavi l l i on Hotel Labor Uni on (HIMPHLU), referred the case back to Med-Arbi ter to deci de whi ch among those votes
woul d be opened and tal l i ed. El even (11) votes were i ni ti al l y segregated because they were cast by di smi ssed
empl oyees, al bei t the l egal i ty of thei r di smi ssal was sti l l pendi ng before the Court of Appeal s. Si x other votes were
segregated because the empl oyees who cast them were al ready occupyi ng supervi sory posi ti ons at the ti me of the
el ecti on. Sti l l fi ve other votes were segregated on the ground that they were cast by probati onary empl oyees and,
pursuant to the exi sti ng Col l ecti ve Bargai ni ng Agreement (CBA), such empl oyees cannot vote. However, the vote of
one Jose Gatbonton (Gatbonton), a probati onary empl oyee, was counted.

By Order of August 22, 2006, Med-Arbi ter rul ed for the openi ng of 17 out of the 22 segregated votes, speci al l y
those cast by the 11 di smi ssed empl oyees and those cast by the si x supposedl y supervi sory empl oyees of the
Hotel .

NUHWHRAIN-MPHC, whi ch garnered 151 votes, appeal ed to the Secretary of Labor and Empl oyment (SOLE),
argui ng that the votes of the probati onary empl oyees shoul d have been opened consi deri ng that probati onary
empl oyee Gatbonton’s vote was tal l i ed. And that HIMPHLU, whi ch garnered 169 votes, shoul d not be i mmedi atel y
certi fi ed as the bargai ni ng agent, as the openi ng of the 17 segregated bal l ots woul d push the number of val i d votes
cast to 338 (151 + 169 + 1 + 17), hence, the 169 votes whi ch HIMPHLU garnered woul d be one vote short of the
majori ty whi ch woul d then become 169.

ISSUE: Whether HIMPHLU obtai ned the majori ty votes ad thus be certi fi ed as the excl usi ve bargai ni ng agent.

RULING: No. It i s wel l -settl ed that under the so-cal l ed "doubl e majori ty rul e," for there to be a val i d certi fi cati on
el ecti on, majori ty of the bargai ni ng uni t must have voted AND the wi nni ng uni on must have garnered majori ty of
the val i d votes cast.

Presci ndi ng from the Court’s rul i ng that al l the probati onary empl oyees’ votes shoul d be deemed val i d votes whi l e
that of the supervi sory empl oyees shoul d be excl uded, i t fol l ows that the number of val i d votes cast woul d
i ncrease – from 321 to 337. Under Art. 256 of the Labor Code, the uni on obtai ni ng the majori ty of the val i d votes
cast by the el i gi bl e voters shal l be certi fi ed as the sol e and excl usi ve bargai ni ng agent of al l the workers i n the
appropri ate bargai ni ng uni t. Thi s majori ty i s 50% + 1. Hence, 50% of 337 i s 168.5 + 1 or at l east 170.

HIMPHLU obtai ned 169 whi l e NUHWHRAIN-MPHC recei ved 151 votes. Cl earl y, HIMPHLU was not abl e to obtai n a
majori ty vote.It bears rei terati on that the true i mportance of ascertai ning the number of val i d votes cast i s for i t to
serve as basi s for computi ng the requi red majori ty, and not just to determi ne whi ch uni on won the el ecti ons. The
openi ng of the segregated but val i d votes has thus become materi al . To be sure, the conduct of a certi fi cati on
el ecti on has a two-fol d objecti ve: to determi ne the appropri ate bargai ni ng uni t and to ascertai n the majori ty
representati on of the bargai ni ng representati ve, i f the empl oyees desi re to be represented at al l by anyone. It i s
not si mpl y the determi nati on of who between two or more contendi ng uni ons won, but whether i t effecti vel y
ascertai ns the wi l l of the members of the bargai ni ng uni t as to whether they want to be represented and whi ch
uni on they want to represent them.


28. SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA SAMMA-LAKAS SA INDUSTRIYA NG KAPATIRANG HALIGI NG
ALYANSA (SAMMA-LIKHA)vs.SAMMA CORPORATION
G.R. No. 167141 March 13, 2009

FACTS:SAMMA-LIKHA fi l ed a peti ti on for certi fi cati on el ecti on on Jul y 24, 2001 i n the Department of Labor and
Empl oyment (DOLE), Regi onal Offi ce IV. It cl ai med that: (1) i t was a l ocal chapter of the LIKHA Federati on, a
l egi ti mate l abor organi zati on regi stered wi th the DOLE; (2) i t sought to represent al l the rank-and-fi l e empl oyees of
respondent Samma Corporati on; (3) there was no other l egi ti mate l abor organi zati on representi ng these rank-and-
fi l e empl oyees; (4) respondent was not a party to any col l ecti ve bargai ni ng agreement and (5) no certi fi cati on or
consent el ecti on had been conducted wi thi n the empl oyer uni t for the l ast 12 months pri or to the fi l i ng of the
peti ti on.

SAMMA CORPORATIONmoved for the di smi ssal of the peti ti on argui ng that (1) LIKHA Federati on fai l ed to establ i sh
i ts l egal personal i ty; (2) peti ti oner fai l ed to prove i ts exi stence as a l ocal chapter; (3) i t fai l ed to attach the
certi fi cate of non-forum shoppi ng and (4) i t had a prohi bi ted mi xture of supervi sory and rank-and-fi l e empl oyees.

In an order dated November 12, 2002, med-arbi ter ordered the di smi ssal of the peti ti on on the fol l owi ng grounds:
(1) l ack of l egal personal i ty for fai l ure to attach the certi fi cate of regi strati on purporti ng to show i ts l egal
personal i ty; (2) prohi bi ted mi xture of rank-and-fi l e and supervi sory empl oyees and (3) fai l ure to submi t a
certi fi cate of non-forum shoppi ng.

ISSUE: Whether a certi fi cate for non-forum shoppi ng i s requi red i n a peti ti on for certi fi cati on el ecti on.

RULING: NO. The requi rement for a certi fi cate of non-forum shoppi ng refers to compl ai nts, counter-cl ai ms, cross-
cl ai ms, peti ti ons or appl i cations where contendi ng parti es l i ti gate thei r respecti ve posi ti ons regardi ng the cl ai m for
rel i ef of the compl ai nant, cl ai mant, peti ti oner or appl i cant. A certi fi cati on proceedi ng, even though i ni ti ated by a
"peti ti on," i s not a l i ti gati on but an i nvesti gati on of a non-adversari al and fact-fi ndi ng character.

Such proceedi ngs are not predi cated upon an al l egati on of mi sconduct requi ri ng rel i ef, but, rather, are merel y of
an i nqui si tori al nature. The Board's functi ons are not judi ci al i n nature, but are merel y of an i nvesti gati ve
character. The object of the proceedi ngs i s not the deci si on of any al l eged commi ssi on of wrongs nor asserted
depri vati on of ri ghts but i s merel y the determi nati on of proper bargai ni ng uni ts and the ascertai nment of the wi l l
and choi ce of the empl oyees i n respect of the sel ecti on of a bargai ni ng representati ve. The determi nati on of the
proceedi ngs does not entai l the entry of remedi al orders to redress ri ghts, but cul mi nates sol el y i n an offi ci al
desi gnati on of bargai ni ng uni ts and an affi rmati on of the empl oyees' expressed choi ce of bargai ni ng agent.


xii. Remedy in case of fraud, misrepresentation, etc.
36. G.R. No. 142000 January 22, 2003
TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS INTERNATIONAL GOLF CLUB INCORPORATED, petitioner,
vs.
TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION-PGTWO, respondent.
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
FACTS:
On October 16, 1997, the Tagaytay Hi ghl ands Empl oyees Uni on (THEU)–Phi l i ppi ne Transport and General Workers
Organi zati on (PTGWO), Local Chapter No. 776, a l egi ti mate l abor organi zati on sai d to represent majori ty of the
rank-and-fi l e empl oyees of THIGCI, fi l ed a peti ti on for certi fi cati on el ecti on before the DOLE Medi ati on-Arbi trati on
Uni t, Regi onal Branch No. IV.
THIGCI, i n i ts Comment1 fi l ed on November 27, 1997, opposed THEU’s peti ti on for certi fi cati on el ecti on on the
ground that the l i st of uni on members submi tted by i t was defecti ve and fatal l y fl awed as i t i ncl uded the names
and si gnatures of supervi sors, resi gned, termi nated and absent wi thout l eave (AWOL) empl oyees, as wel l as
empl oyees of The Country Cl ub, Inc., a corporati on di sti nct and separate from THIGCI; and that out of the 192
si gnatori es to the peti ti on, onl y 71 were actual rank-and-fi l e empl oyees of THIGCI.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the i nfi rmi ty i n the membershi p of the respondent uni on can be remedi ed i n "the pre-el ecti on
conference thru the excl usi on-i ncl usi on proceedi ngs wherei n those empl oyees who are occupyi ng rank-and-fi l e
posi ti ons wi l l be excl uded from the l i st of el i gi bl e voters.
RULING:
The peti ti on fai l s. After a certi fi cate of regi strati on i s i ssued to a uni on, i ts l egal personal i ty cannot be subject to
col l ateral attack. It may be questi oned onl y i n an i ndependent peti ti on for cancel l ati on i n accordance wi th Secti on
5 of Rul e V, Book IV of the "Rul es to Impl ement the Labor Code" (Impl ementi ng Rul es) whi ch secti on reads:
Sec. 5. Effect of regi strati on. The l abor organi zati on or workers’ associ ati on shal l be deemed regi stered and vested
wi th l egal personal i ty on the date of i ssuance of i ts certi fi cate of regi strati on. Such l egal personal i ty cannot
thereafter be subject to col l ateral attack, but may be questi oned onl y i n an i ndependent peti ti on for
cancel l ati on i n accordance wi th these Rul es. (Emphasi s suppl i ed)
The grounds for cancel l ati on of uni on regi strati on are provi ded for under Arti cl e 239 of the Labor Code.
The i ncl usion i n a uni on of di squal ified empl oyees i s not among the grounds for cancel l ation, unl ess such i ncl usi on
i s due to mi srepresentati on, fal se statement or fraud under the ci rcumstances enumerated i n Secti ons (a) and (c)
of Arti cl e 239 of above-quoted Arti cl e 239 of the Labor Code.
THEU, havi ng been val i dl y i ssued a certi fi cate of regi strati on, shoul d be consi dered to have al ready acqui red
juri di cal personal i ty whi ch may not be assai l ed col l ateral l y.
As for peti ti oner’s al l egati on that some of the si gnatures i n the peti ti on for certi fi cati on el ecti on were obtai ned
through fraud, fal se statement and mi srepresentati on, the proper procedure i s, as refl ected above, for i t to fi l e a
peti ti on for cancel l ati on of the certi fi cate of regi strati on, and not to i ntervene i n a peti ti on for certi fi cati on
el ecti on.
WHEREFORE, the peti ti on i s hereby DENIED. Let the records of the case be remanded to the offi ce of ori gi n, the
Medi ati on-Arbi trati on Uni t, Regi onal Branch No. IV, for the i mmedi ate conduct of a certi fi cati on el ecti on subject to
the usual pre-el ecti on conference.
SO ORDERED.

i.List of qualified voters
37. G.R. No. L-18848 April 23, 1963
ACOJE WORKERS’ UNION vs. NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION (NAMAWU), ACOJE MINES
COMPANY and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
FACTS:
Department of Labor, through the BLR, conducted on June 9, 1961, a “consent el ecti on” among the workers of the
Acoje Mi ni ng Company at Santa Cruz, Zambal es, i n whi ch 5 l abor uni ons parti ci pated, namel y, the Acoje Uni ted
Workers’ Uni on, the Acoje Labor Uni on (PELTA), the Acoj e Labor Uni on (PLUM), respondent Nati onal Mi nes and
Al l i ed Workers’ Uni on (NAMAWU), and peti ti oner Acoje Workers’ Uni on. NAMAWU won i n the sai d el ecti on.
Peti ti oner Uni on — whi ch had been defeated by respondent Uni on by a margi n of 282 votes — had fi l ed a moti on
to i nval i date sai d el ecti on upon several grounds. After heari ng, the l ower court i ssued, on Jul y 21, 1961, the order
appeal ed from hol di ng that sai d moti on was wi thout meri t, and certi fyi ng respondent Uni on NAMAWU as the sol e
and excl usi ve bargai ni ng agent of al l the workers of the Company. MR of peti ti oner was deni ed, hence thi s present
appeal by certi orari , and peti ti oner now mai ntai ns that the l ower court shoul d have i nval i dated the
aforementi oned el ecti on for the same was “the resul t of acts of terrori sm, force, threat and i nti mi dati on empl oyed
by” agents of respondent Uni on. The peti ti oner al so questi oned the l i st of qual i fi ed voters that was used duri ng
the el ecti on whi ch was based on the payrol l of the empl oyees.
ISSUE:
Can a payrol l be used as the basi s for qual i fi ed empl oyee- voters?
RULING:
YES. It appears that l abor uni ons concerned agreed, not onl y to the hol di ng of the aforementi oned el ecti on, but
al so to the use of the Company payrol l of March 31, 1961, as the basi s for determi ni ng who ar e qual i fi ed to vote
subject to the approval of the l ower court. The Company presented i ts aforementi oned payrol l to sai d court and
stated that the l abor uni ons had been furni shed copy thereof, at l east 3 days pri or thereto. Sai d l abor uni ons were
gi ven an opportuni ty to make thei r comments and observati ons on the l i st of workers contai ned i n the payrol l and
to ask or suggest the i ncl usi on or excl usi on of names therei n or therefrom. Peti ti oner’s representati ve then
stated that i t woul d abi de by whatever rul i ng the court may make on the matter of i ncl usi on and excl usi on of
voters. Indeed, on May 19, 1961, the court i ssued the correspondi ng order for the hol di ng of the el ecti on and
made i ts rul i ng on the questi on as to who were qual i fi ed to vote, and peti ti oner di d not move for a reconsi derati on
of sai d rul i ng. Hence, peti ti oner may no l onger contest the accuracy of the aforementi oned voters l i st.
As to the al l egati on of peti ti oner that there are many cases where the workers were threatened, coerced and
i nti mi dated to vote for the NAMAWU, i s but a general al l egati on, wi thout anythi ng to i ndi cate the number of
workers i nvol ved, wi thout the supporti ng affi davi t of any of them, and wi thout an offer to i ntroduce thei r
testi mony or the testi mony of any of them was. Peti ti oner’s contenti on i s i nsuffi cient to warrant the i nval i dati on of
the aforementi oned el ecti on.
WHEREFORE, the order appeal ed from i s hereby affi rmed.

38.
YOKOHAMA TIRE PHILIPPINES, INC.,
Petitioner,



- versus -



YOKOHAMA EMPLOYEESUNION,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 159553

Present:

QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson,
CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA, and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.

Promulgated:

December 10, 2007
FACTS:
In November 2001, a certi fi cati on el ecti on was hel d at Yokohama Ti re Phi l i ppi nes, Inc. to certi fy the Yokohama
Empl oyees Uni on. A total of 401 votes were cast whi ch i s broken down i n the fol l owi ng manner: 131 i n favor of
uni on, 117 i n favor of no uni on, 2 spoi l ed bal l ots, and 151 votes not yet counted as they were chal l enged by both
parti es. Duri ng the el ecti on day, Yokohama chal l enged 78 votes whi ch were cast as i t al l eged that these 78 votes
compri sed of di smi ssed empl oyees who have no ri ghts to vote i n the sai d el ecti on. Yokohama fi l ed a formal protest
i n rel ati on thereto.
On the other hand, the uni on contested the el i gi bi l i ty of 73 votes cast as i t al l eged that 5 votes were cast by
supervi sors and 68 were cast by newl y regul ari zed empl oyees whose names were not submi tted duri ng the pre-
el ecti on conference. The uni on di d not formal i ze i ts protest but on el ecti on day, i t al ready submi tted a
handwri tten mani festati on of thei r contest regardi ng the sai d 73 votes. Yokohama l ater on questi oned the
procedural val i di ty of the uni on’s contest regardi ng the 73 votes.
The case reached the Department of Labor and Empl oyment whi ch rul ed agai nst Yokohama. Thi s was affi rmed by
the Court of Appeal s.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the votes cast by the di smi ssed empl oyees shoul d be counted.
HELD:
Yes. The 78 di smi ssed empl oyees, i n thi s case, were currentl y contesti ng thei r di smi ssal as there was a pendi ng
i l l egal di smi ssal case fi l ed by them agai nst Yokohama. Secti on 2, Rul e XII of the rul es i mpl ementi ng Book V of the
Labor Code al l ows a di smissed empl oyee to vote i n the certi fi cati on el ecti on i f the case contesti ng the di smi ssal i s
sti l l pendi ng.
Anent the i ssue of the uni on not formal i zi ng thei r protest, the Supreme Court rul ed that the handwri tten
mani festati on submi tted duri ng el ecti on day i s al ready substanti al compl i ance to the procedural requi rement. But
neverthel ess, the i ssue on the 73 votes chal l enged by the uni on i s al ready moot because the Med-Arbi ter al ready
consi dered 77 of the 78 chal l enged votes by Yokohama i n favor of the uni on (pursuant to an order by the Court of
Appeal s), fi nal tal l y bei ng: 208 for the uni on and 121 for no uni on. So even i f the 73 votes are al l i n favor of “no
uni on”, the uni on sti l l wi ns.
1)In lieu of list of employees
39. G.R. No. 111245 January 31, 1997
SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA PACIFIC PLASTIC, petitioner,
vs.
HON. BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA, Undersecretary of labor, and MALAYANG NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA NG
PACIFIC PLASTIC, respondents,
MENDOZA, J.:
FACTS:
Peti ti oner SAMAHAN and respondent MNMPP are l abor uni ons of rank and fi l e empl oyees at the Paci fi c Pl asti c
Corporati on (PPC) i n Val enzuel a, Metro Mani l a. On August 24, 1990, MNMPP fi l ed a Peti ti on for Certi fi cati on
El ecti on, al l egi ng that there were more or l ess 130 rank and fi l e empl oyees at the PPC whom i t was seeki ng to
represent. 1 SAMAHAN countered by seeki ng the cancel l ati on of MNMPP's uni on regi strati on. As a resul t,
MNMPP's peti ti on to be certi fi ed as the bargai ni ng agent was di smi ssed. MNMPP appeal ed to the Secretary of
Labor who, on March 5, 1991, reversed the deci si on of the Med-Arbi ter and ordered the hol di ng of a certi fi cati on
el ecti on among the rank and fi l e empl oyees of the PPC. The PPC fi l ed a Moti on for Reconsi derati on but i ts moti on
was deni ed. Accordi ngl y, the representati on offi cer of the Secretary of Labor hel d a pre-el ecti on conference on
May 6, 1991, duri ng whi ch the PPC was requi red to submi t the l i st of i ts rank and fi l e empl oyees based on the
company payrol l three (3) months pri or to the fi l i ng of the peti ti on. As respondent company fai l ed to submi t the
l i st, i t was gi ven a stern warni ng by the Department of Labor (DOLE) that shoul d i t fai l to appear at the next
conference on June 3, 1991, the l i st to be submi tted by peti ti oner MNMPP woul d be used as basi s for determi ni ng
the el i gi bl e voters. 2 But the PPC agai n fai l ed to appear at the conference, prompti ng the Department of Labor
Industri al Rel ati ons Di vi si on (DOLE-IRD) to i ssue a fi nal warni ng. 3
On August 23, 1991, the DOLE-IRD summoned respondent company once more, rei terati ng i ts warni ng that shoul d
the company fai l to submi t the l i st of i ts rank and fi l e empl oyees, the l i st to be submi tted by pri vate respondent
MNMPP and peti ti oner SAMAHAN woul d be adopted as the l i st of qual i fi ed voters and the company's ri ght to the
excl usi on proceedi ngs woul d be deemed wai ved. 6
But agai n PPC di d not compl y wi th the DOLE order. They agreed to postpone el ecti on to awai t the l i st of
empl oyees requested from the Soci al Securi ty System. 8
On September 10, 1992, upon moti on of MNMPP, the certi fi cati on el ecti on was fi nal l y set for October 6, 1992. But
SAMAHAN objected despi te i ts agreement wi th MNMPP on September 23, 1991 to hol d an el ecti on usi ng the l i st
furni shed by the SSS.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the SSS l i sts i ndi cati ng 98 covered empl oyees can be used as substi tute for three (3) monthl y
payrol l s requi red for the purpose of determi ni ng the qual i fi ed voters and the majori ty vote needed i n an el ecti on.
RULING:
The peti ti on has no meri t.
The certi fi cati on el ecti on hel d on October 6, 1992 i s val i d Art. 256 of the l abor Code provi des that i n order to have
a val i d el ecti on, at l east a majori ty of al l el i gi bl e voters i n the uni t must have cast thei r votes. The certi fi cati on
el ecti on resul ts show that more than a majori ty, i .e, 62 out of a total of 98 el i gi bl e voters i ncl uded i n the l i st of
empl oyees obtai ned from the SSS, cast thei r votes. Hence, the l egal requi rement for a val i d el ecti on was met.
It shoul d i deal l y be the payrol l whi ch shoul d have been used for the purpose of the el ecti on. However, the
unjusti fi ed refusal of a company to submi t the payrol l i n i ts custody, despi te efforts to make i t produce i t,
compel l ed resort to the SSS l i st as the next best source of i nformati on. After al l , the SSS l i st i s a publ i c record
whose regul ari ty i s presumed.
It bears stressi ng that no obstacl e must be pl aced to the hol di ng of certi fi cati on el ecti ons, for i t i s a statutory pol i cy
that shoul d not be ci rcumvented. We have hel d that whenever there i s doubt as to whether a parti cul ar uni on
represents the majori ty of the rank and fi l e empl oyees, i n the absence of a l egal i mpedi ment, the hol di ng of a
certi fi cati on el ecti on i s the most democrati c method of determi ni ng the empl oyees' choi ce of thei r bargai ni ng
representati ve. It i s the appropri ate means whereby controversi es and di sputes on representati on may be l ai d to
rest, by the unequi vocal vote of the empl oyees themsel ves. Indeed, i t i s the keystone of i ndustri al democracy.
At al l events peti ti oner must be deemed to have wai ved the objecti on based on thi s ground, consi deri ng that thi s
objecti on was rai sed for the fi rst ti me i n peti ti oner's appeal from the deci si on of the Med-Arbi ter di smi ssi ng
peti ti oner's protest. 18 Even then, peti ti oner's objecti on to the use of the SSS l i st was not that thi s was contrary to
the requi rement of the Impl ementi ng Rul es that the payrol l three (3) months pri or to the fi l i ng of the peti ti on
shoul d be used but rather that the l i st contai ned some di screpancy 19 — an al l egati on whi ch peti ti oner fai l ed to
substanti ate.
At the l atest, peti ti oner's objecti on to the use of the SSS shoul d have been rai sed duri ng the el ecti ons and
formal i zed i n i ts el ecti on protest. We agree wi th pri vate respondent MNMPP i n i ts Opposi ti on to SAMAHAN's
el ecti on protest dated October 15, 1992 that under the Impl ementi ng Rul es, grounds of protests not rai sed before
the cl ose of the proceedi ngs and dul y formal i zed wi thi n fi ve (5) days after the cl ose of the el ecti on proceedi ngs are
deemed wai ved. 20
WHEREFORE, the peti ti on for certi orari i s DENIED for l ack of meri t.
SO ORDERED

iii. Disaffiliation
40. G.R. No.174287, August 12, 2013
NATIONAL UNION OF BANK EMPLOYEES (NUBE), Petitioner, v. PHILNABANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PEMA)
AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:

FACTS:
Respondent Phi l i ppine Nati onal Bank (PNB) used to be a government-owned and control l ed banki ng i nsti tuti on. Its
rank-and-fi l e empl oyees, bei ng government personnel , were represented for col l ecti ve negoti ati on by the
Phi l nabank Empl oyees Associ ati on (PEMA), a publ i c sector uni on.

NUBE-PEC was certi fi ed as the sol e and excl usi ve bargai ning agent of the PNB rank-and-fi l e empl oyees. A col l ecti ve
bargai ni ng agreement (CBA) was subsequentl y si gned between NUBE-PEC and PNB coveri ng the peri od of January
1, 1997 to December 31, 2001.

Fol l owi ng the expi rati on of the CBA, the Phi l nabank Empl oyees Associ ati on-FFW (PEMA-FFW) fi l ed on January 2,
2002 a peti ti on for certi fi cati on el ecti on among the rank-and-fi l e empl oyees of PNB. The peti ti on sought the
conduct of a certi fi cati on el ecti on to be parti ci pated i n by PEMA-FFW and NUBE-PEC.

Whi l e the peti ti on for certi fi cati on el ecti on was sti l l pendi ng, two si gni fi cant events transpi red – the i ndependent
uni on regi strati on of NUBE- PEC and i ts di saffi l i ati on wi th NUBE.

Wi th a l egal personal i ty deri ved onl y from a charter i ssued by NUBE, NUBE-PEC, under the l eadershi p of Mari ano
Sori a, deci ded to appl y for a separate regi strati on wi th the Department of Labor and Empl oyment (DOLE).
Thereafter, on June 20, 2003, the Board of Di rectors of NUBE-PEC adopted a Resol uti on6 di saffi l i ati ng i tsel f from
NUBE.
On the same date, PEMA sent a l etter to the PNB management i nformi ng i ts di saffi l i ati on from NUBE and
requesti ng to stop, effecti ve i mmedi atel y, the check-off of the P15.00 due for NUBE.
ISSUE:
Whether there was a val i d di saffi l i ati on.
RULING:
The ri ght of the l ocal uni on to exerci se the ri ght to di saffi l i ate from i ts mother uni on i s wel l settl ed i n thi s
juri sdi cti on. In MSMG-UWP v. Hon. Ramos,29 We hel d:
A l ocal uni on has the ri ght to di saffi l i ate from i ts mother uni on or decl are i ts autonomy. A l ocal uni on, bei ng a
separate and vol untary associ ati on, i s free to serve the i nterests of al l i ts members i ncl udi ng the freedom to
di saffi l i ate or decl are i ts autonomy from the federati on whi ch i t bel ongs when ci rcumstances warrant, i n
accordance wi th the consti tuti onal guarantee of freedom of associ ati on.

The purpose of affi l i ati on by a l ocal uni on wi th a mother uni on [or]
a federati on

"x x x i s to i ncrease by col l ecti ve acti on the bargai ni ng power i n respect of the terms and condi ti ons of l abor. Yet
the l ocal s remai ned the basi c uni ts of associ ati on, free to serve thei r own and the common i nterest of al l , subject
to the restrai nts i mposed by the Consti tuti on and By-Laws of the Associ ati on, and free al so to renounce the
affi l i ati on for mutual wel fare upon the terms l ai d down i n the agreement whi ch brought i t i nto exi stence."

Thus, a l ocal uni on whi ch has affi l i ated i tsel f wi th a federati on i s free to sever such affi l i ati on anyti me and such
di saffi liati on cannot be consi dered di sl oyalty. In the absence of speci fi c provi si ons i n the federati on's consti tuti on
prohi bi ti ng di saffi l i ati on or the decl arati on of autonomy of a l ocal uni on, a l ocal may di ssoci ate wi th i ts parent
uni on.
Under the rul es i mpl ementi ng the Labor Code, a chartered l ocal uni on acqui res l egal personal i ty through the
charter certi fi cate i ssued by a dul y regi stered federati on or nati onal uni on, and reported to the Regi onal Offi ce i n
accordance wi th the rul es i mpl ementi ng the Labor Code. A l ocal uni on does not owe i ts exi stence to the federati on
wi th whi ch i t i s affi l i ated. It i s a separate and di sti nct vol untary associ ati on owi ng i ts creati on to the wi l l of i ts
members. Mere affi l i ati on does not di vest the l ocal uni on of i ts own personal i ty, nei ther does i t gi ve the mother
federati on the l i cense to act i ndependentl y of the l ocal uni on. It onl y gi ves ri se to a contract of agency, where the
former acts i n representati on of the l atter. Hence, l ocal uni ons are consi dered pri nci pal s whi l e the federati on i s
deemed to be merel y thei r agent. As such pri nci pals, the uni ons are enti tl ed to exerci se the ri ghts a nd pri vi l eges of
a l egi ti mate l abor organi zati on, i ncl udi ng the ri ght to seek certi fi cati on as the sol e and excl usi ve bargai ni ng agent
i n the appropri ate empl oyer uni t.
A l ocal l abor uni on i s a separate and di sti nct uni t pri mari l y desi gned to secure and mai ntai n an equal i ty of
bargai ni ng power between the empl oyer and thei r empl oyee-members. A l ocal uni on does not owe i ts exi stence to
the federati on wi th whi ch i t i s affi l iated. It i s a separate and di sti nct vol untary associ ati on owi ng i ts creati on to the
wi l l of i ts members. The mere act of affi l i ation does not di vest the l ocal uni on of i ts own personal i ty, nei ther does it
gi ve the mother federati on the l i cense to act i ndependentl y of the l ocal uni on. It onl y gi ves ri se to a contract of
agency where the former acts i n representati on of the l atter.
These and many more have consi stentl y rei terated the earl i er vi ew that the ri ght of the l ocal members to
wi thdraw from the federati on and to form a new l ocal uni on depends upon the provi si ons of the uni on's
consti tuti on, by-l aws and charter and, i n the absence of enforceabl e provi si ons i n the federati on's consti tuti on
preventi ng di saffi l i ati on of a l ocal uni on, a l ocal may sever i ts rel ati onshi p wi th i ts parent.37 In the case at bar,
there i s nothi ng shown i n the records nor i s i t cl ai med by NUBE that PEMA was expressl y forbi dden to di saffi l i ate
from the federati on nor were there any condi ti ons i mposed for a val i d breakaway. Thi s bei ng so, PEMA i s not
precl uded to di saffi liate from NUBE after acqui ri ng the status of an i ndependent l abor organi zati on dul y regi stered
before the DOLE.

Al so, there i s no meri t on NUBE’s contenti on that PEMA’s di saffi l i ati on i s i nval i d for non-observance of the
procedure that uni on members shoul d make such determi nati on through secret bal l ot and after due del i berati on,
conformabl y wi th Arti cl e 241 (d) of the Labor Code, as amended.38 Conspi cuousl y, other than ci ti ng the opi ni on of
a “recogni zed l abor l aw authori ty,” NUBE fai l ed to quote a speci fi c provi si on of the l aw or rul e mandati ng that a
l ocal uni on’s di saffi l i ati on from a federati on must compl y wi th Arti cl e 241 (d) i n order to be val i d and effecti ve.

Granti ng, for argument’s sake, that Arti cl e 241 (d) i s appl i cabl e, sti l l , We uphol d PEMA’s di saffi l i ati on from
NUBE. Fi rst, non-compl i ance wi th the procedure on di saffi l i ati on, bei ng premi sed on purel y techni cal grounds
cannot ri se above the empl oyees’ fundamental ri ght to sel f-organi zati on and to form and joi n l abor organi zati ons
of thei r own choosi ng for the purpose of col l ecti ve bargai ni ng.39Second, the Arti cl e nonethel ess provi des that
when the nature of the organi zati on renders such secret bal l ot i mpracti cal , the uni on offi cers may make the
deci si on i n behal f of the general membershi p. In thi s case, NUBE di d not even dare to contest PEMA’s
representati on that “PNB empl oyees, from where [PEMA] [deri ves] i ts membershi p, are scattered from Aparri to
Jol o, manni ng more than 300 branches i n vari ous towns and ci ti es of the country,” hence, “[to] gather the general
membershi p of the uni on i n a general membershi p to vote through secret bal l oti ng i s vi rtual l y i mpossi bl e.”40 It i s
understandabl e, therefore, why PEMA’s board of di rectors merel y opted to submi t for rati fi cati on of the majori ty
thei r resol uti on to di saffi l i ate from NUBE. Thi rd, and most i mportantl y, NUBE di d not di spute the exi stence of the
persons or thei r due executi on of the document showi ng thei r unequi vocal support for the di saffi l i ati on of PEMA
from NUBE. Note must be taken of the fact that the l i st of PEMA members (i denti fyi ng themsel ves as “PEMA-
Serrana Group”41) who agreed wi th the board resol uti on was attached as Annex “H” of PEMA’s peti ti on before
the CA and covered pages 115 to 440 of the CA rol l o. Whi l e ful l y di spl ayi ng the empl oyees’ pri nted name,
i denti fi cati on number, branch, posi ti on, and si gnature, the l i st was l eft unchal l enged by NUBE. No evi dence was
presented that the uni on members’ rati fi cati on was obtai ned by mi stake or through fraud, force or i nti mi dati on.
Surel y, thi s i s not a case where one or two members of the l ocal uni on deci ded to di saffi l i ate from the mother
federati on, but one where more than a majori ty of the l ocal uni on members deci ded to di saffi l i ate.

Consequentl y, by PEMA's val i d di saffi l i ati on from NUBE, the vi ncul um that previ ousl y bound the two enti ti es was
compl etel y severed. As NUBE was di vested of any and al l power to act i n representati on of PEMA, any act
performed by the former that affects the i nterests and affai rs of the l atter, i ncl udi ng the supposed expul si on of
Serrana et al ., i s rendered wi thout force and effect.

Al so, i n effect, NUBE l oses i t ri ght to col l ect al l uni on dues hel d i n i ts trust by PNB. The moment that PEMA
separated from and l eft NUBE and exi sts as an i ndependent l abor organi zati on wi th a certi fi cate of regi strati on, the
former i s no l onger obl i ged to pay dues and assessments to the l atter; natural l y, there woul d be no l onger any
reason or occasi on for PNB to conti nue maki ng deducti ons.42 As we sai d i n Vol kschel Labor Uni on v. Bureau of
Labor Rel ati ons:43cral aw vi rtual aw l i brary
x x x In other words, ALUMETAL [NUBE i n thi s case] i s enti tl ed to recei ve the dues from respondent compani es as
l ong as peti ti oner uni on i s affi l i ated wi th i t and respondent compani es are authori zed by thei r empl oyees
(members of peti ti oner uni on) to deduct uni on dues. Wi thout sai d affi l i ati on, the empl oyer has no l i nk to the
mother uni on. The obl i gati on of an empl oyee to pay uni on dues i s cotermi nous wi th hi s affi l i ati on or membershi p.
"The empl oyees' check-off authori zati on, even i f decl ared i rrevocabl e, i s good onl y as l ong as they remai n
members of the uni on concerned." A contract between an empl oyer and the parent organi zati on as bargai ni ng
agent for the empl oyees i s termi nated bv the di saffi l i ati on ofthe l ocal of whi ch the empl oyees are members. x x
x44cral aw vi rtual aw l i brary
On the other hand, i t was enti rel y reasonabl e for PNB to enter i nto a CBA wi th PEMA as represented by Serrana et
al . Si nce PEMA had val i dl y separated i tsel f from NUBE, there woul d be no restri cti ons whi ch coul d val i dl y hi nder i t
from col l ecti vel y bargai ni ng wi th PNB.

WHEREFORE, the foregoi ng consi dered, the i nstant Peti ti on i s DENIED. SO ORDERED

iv.Nature of relationship between mother unio vis-à-vis local union
41. G.R. No. L-41955 December 29, 1977
ELISCO-ELIROL LABOR UNION (NAFLU) and its OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, petitioners
vs.
CARMELO NORIEL, in his capacity as Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, ELIZALDE STEEL CONSOLIDATED,
INC. and NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS (NAFLU), respondents.

FACTS:
El i sco-El i rol Labor Uni on (NAFLU) negoti ated and executed a CBA wi th El i zal de Steel Consol i dated Inc. However,
El i sco-El i rol then was not yet a regi stered uni on. In order to be abl e to execute the CBA, they had the uni on
regi stered, whi ch was granted. They l i kewi se moved to di saffi l i ate themsel ves wi th NAFLU. El i zal de, however,
refused to recogni zed them as the sol e and excl usi ve bargai ni ng agent (SEBA) and i t di smi ssed the offi cers of the
uni on because of the uni on securi ty cl ause i n the CBA. El i sco-El i rol fi l ed a compl ai nt for unfai r l abor practi ce wi th
the BLR. The BLR di smi ssed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not El i sco-El i rol i s the SEBA
RULING:
YES. The error of BLR i s not percei vi ng that the empl oyees and members of the l ocal uni on di d not form a new
uni on but merel y regi stered the l ocal uni on as was thei r ri ght. Peti ti oner El i sco-El i rol Labor Uni on-NAFLU,
consi sti ng of empl oyees and members of the l ocal uni on was the pri nci pal party to the agreement. NAFLU as the
mother uni on" i n parti ci pati ng i n the executi on of the bargai ni ng agreement wi th respondent company acted
merel y as agent of the l ocal uni on, whi ch remai ned the basi c uni t of the associati on exi sti ng pri nci pal l y and freel y
to serve the common i nterest of al l i ts members, i ncl udi ng the freedom to di saffi l i ate when the ci rcumstances so
warranted as i n the present case.
"(T)he l ocal s are separate and di sti nct uni ts pri mari l y desi gned to secure and mai ntai n an equal i ty of bargai ni ng
power between the empl oyer and thei r empl oyee-members i n the economi c struggl e for the frui ts of the joi nt
producti ve effort of l abor and capi tal ; and the associ ati on of the l ocal s i nto the nati onal uni on (as PAFLU) was i n
furtherance of the same end. These associ ati ons are consensual enti ti es capabl e of enteri ng i nto such l egal
rel ati ons wi th thei r members. The essenti al purpose was the affi l i ati on of the l ocal uni ons i nto a common
enterpri se to i ncrease by col l ecti ve acti on the common bargai ni ng power i n respect of the terms and condi ti ons of
l abor. Yet the l ocal s remai ned the basi c uni ts of associ ati on, free to serve thei r own and the common i nterest of
al l , subject to the restrai nts i mposed by the Consti tuti on and By-Laws of the Associ ati on, and free al so to renounce
the affi l i ati on for mutual wel fare upon the terms l ai d down i n the agreement whi ch brought i t i nto exi stence."
(Li berty Cotton Mi l l s Workers Uni on vs. Li berty Cotton Mi l l s Inc.)

Such mai ntenance of the membershi p cl ause coul d not be so di storted.. What i s paramount i s the securi ty of
tenure of the workers and not the securi ty of the uni on.

a) Fraud and misrepresentation must be grave
42.
THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA, acting through its owner,
GRAND PLAZA HOTEL CORPORATION,
Petitioner,

- versus -

NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN THE HOTEL,
RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES-HERITAGE HOTEL
MANILA SUPERVISORS CHAPTER (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC),
Respondent.
G.R. No. 178296

Present:

CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson,
NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,*
ABAD, and
MENDOZA, JJ.


Promulgated:

January 12, 2011

FACTS:
Someti me i n 2000, certai n rank and fi l e empl oyees of peti ti oner Heri tage Hotel Mani l a formed the “Heri tage Hotel
Empl oyees Uni on” (the HHE uni on). The Department of Labor and Empl oyment-Nati onal Capi tal Regi on (DOLE-
NCR) l ater i ssued a certi fi cate of regi strati on to thi s uni on.

Subsequentl y, the HHE uni on fi l ed a peti ti on for certi fi cati on el ecti on that peti ti oner company opposed. The
company al l eged that the HHE uni on mi srepresented i tsel f to be an i ndependent uni on, when i t was, i n truth, a
l ocal chapter of the Nati onal Uni on of Workers i n Hotel and Restaurant and Al l i ed Industri es (NUWHRAIN).

Meanwhi l e, the Med-Arbi ter granted the HHE uni on’s peti ti on for certi fi cati on el ecti on. Peti ti oner company
appeal ed the deci si on to the Secretary of Labor but the l atter deni ed the appeal . The Secretary al so deni ed
peti ti oner’s moti on for reconsi derati on, prompti ng the company to fi l e a peti ti on for certi orari wi th the Court of
Appeal s.

On October 12, 2001 the Court of Appeal s i ssued a wri t of i njuncti on agai nst the hol di ng of the HHE uni on’s
certi fi cati on el ecti on, effecti ve unti l the peti ti on for cancel l ati on of that uni on’s regi strati on shal l have been
resol ved wi th fi nal i ty. The deci si on of the Court of Appeal s became fi nal when the HHE uni on wi thdrew the
peti ti on for revi ew that i t fi l ed wi th thi s Court.

On December 10, 2003 certai n rank and fi l e empl oyees of peti ti oner company hel d a meeti ng and formed
another uni on, the respondent Pi nag-Isang Gal i ng at Lakas ng mga Manggagawa sa Heri tage Mani l a (the PIGLAS
uni on). Two months l ater, the members of the fi rst uni on, the HHE uni on, adopted a resol uti on for i ts
di ssol uti on. The HHE uni on then fi l ed a peti ti on for cancel l ati on of i ts uni on regi strati on.

On September 4, 2004 respondent PIGLAS uni on fi l ed a peti ti on for certi fi cati on el ecti on that peti ti oner company
al so opposed, al l egi ng that the new uni on’s offi cers and members were al so those who compri sed the ol d
uni on. Accordi ng to the company, the empl oyees i nvol ved formed the PIGLAS uni on to c i rcumvent the Court of
Appeal s’ i njuncti on agai nst the hol di ng of the certi fi cati on el ecti on sought by the former uni on. Despi te the
company’s opposi ti on, however, the Med-Arbi ter granted the peti ti on for certi fi cati on el ecti on.

ISSUES:
(1) Di d the uni on made fatal mi srepresentati on i n i ts appl i cati on for uni on regi strati on?
(2) Is dual uni oni sm a ground for cancel l i ng a uni on’s regi strati on?

RULING:
(Fi rst Issue):
No. Respondent PIGLAS uni on’s organi zati on meeti ng l asted for 12 hours. It was possi bl e for the number of
attendees to have i ncreased from 90 to 128 as the meeti ng progressed. Besi des, wi th a total of 250 empl oyees i n
the bargai ni ng uni t, the uni on needed onl y 50 members to compl y wi th the 20 percent membershi p
requi rement. Thus, the uni on coul d not be accused of mi srepresentati on si nce i t di d not pad i ts membershi p to
secure regi strati on.

(Second Issue): No. The fact that some of respondent PIGLAS uni on’s members were al so members of the ol d rank
and fi l e uni on, the HHE uni on, i s not a ground for cancel i ng the new uni on’s regi strati on. The ri ght of any person to
joi n an organi zati on al so i ncl udes the ri ght to l eave that organi zati on and joi n another one. Besi des, HHE uni on i s
dead. It had ceased to exi st and i ts certi fi cate of regi strati on had al ready been cancel l ed. Thus, peti ti oner’s
arguments on thi s poi nt may al so be now regarded as moot and academi c.

43. G.R. No. 196276, June 04, 2014
TAKATA (PHILIPPINES) CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS AND SAMAHANG LAKAS
MANGGAGAWA NG TAKATA (SALAMAT), Respondents.

FACTS: Peti ti oner fi l ed wi th the Department of Labor and Empl oyment (DOLE) Regi onal Offi ce a Peti ti on for
Cancel l ati on of the Certi fi cate of Uni on Regi strati on of Respondent Samahang Lakas Manggagawa ng Takata
(SALAMAT) on the ground that the l atter i s gui l ty of mi srepresentati on, fal se statement and fraud wi th respect to
the number of those who parti ci pated i n the organi zati onal meeti ng, the adopti on and rati fi cati on of i ts
Consti tuti on and By-Laws, and i n the el ecti on of i ts offi cers.

DOLE Regi onal Di rector i ssued a Deci si on granti ng the peti ti on for cancel l ati on of respondent's certi fi cate of
regi strati on.

After consi deri ng respondent's Appeal Memorandum wi th Formal Entry of Appearance and peti ti oner 's Answer,
the BLR rendered i ts Deci si on reversi ng the Order of the Regi onal Di rector.

Peti ti oner fi l ed a moti on for reconsi derati on, whi ch was deni ed by the BLR. Undaunted, peti ti oner went to the CA
vi a a peti ti on for certi orari under Rul e 65. CA rendered i ts assailed deci sion whi ch deni ed the peti ti on and affi rmed
the deci si on of the BLR. Hence thi s peti ti on for revi ew.

ISSUE: whether or not the cancel l ati on of respondent's regi strati on on grounds of fraud and mi srepresentati on
beari ng on the mi ni mum requi rement of the l aw as to i ts membershi p, consi deri ng the bi g di spari ty i n numbers,
between the organi zati onal meeti ng and the l i st of members, and so mi sl eadi ng the BLR that i t obtai ned the
mi ni mum requi red number of empl oyees for purposes of organi zati on and regi strati on i s proper?

HELD: The Supreme Court fi nds no meri t i n the arguments.

It does not appear i n Arti cl e 234 (b) of the Labor Code that the attendees i n the organi zati onal meeti ng must
compri se 20% of the empl oyees i n the bargai ni ng uni t. In fact, even the Impl ementi ng Rul es and Regul ati ons of the
Labor Code does not so provi de. It i s onl y under Arti cl e 234 (c) that requi res the names of al l i ts members
compri si ng at l east twenty percent (20%) of al l the empl oyees i n the bargai ni ng uni t where i t seeks to operate.
Cl earl y, the 20% mi ni mum requi rement pertai ns to the empl oyees’ membershi p i n the uni on and not to the l i st of
workers who parti ci pated i n the organi zati onal meeti ng. Indeed, Arti cl e 234 (b) and (c) provi de for separate
requi rements, whi ch must be submi tted for the uni on's regi strati on, and whi ch respondent di d submi t. Here, the
total number of empl oyees i n the bargai ni ng uni t was 396, and 20% of whi ch was about 79. Respondent submi tted
a document enti tl ed “Pangalan ng Mga Kasapi ng Unyon” showi ng the names of 119 empl oyees as uni on
members, thus respondent suffi ci entl y compl i ed even beyond the 20% mi ni mum membershi p requi rement.
Respondent al so submi tted the attendance sheet of the organi zati onal meeti ng whi ch contai ned the names and
si gnatures of the 68 uni on members who attended the meeti ng. Consi deri ng that there are 119 uni on members
whi ch are more than 20% of al l the empl oyees of the bargai ni ng uni t, and si nce the l aw does not provi de for the
requi red number of members to attend the organi zati onal meeti ng, the 68 attendees whi ch compri sed at l east the
majori ty of the 119 uni on members woul d al ready consti tute a quorum for the meeti ng to proceed and to val i dl y
rati fy the Consti tuti on and By-l aws of the uni on. There i s, therefore, no basi s for peti ti oner to contend that
grounds exi st for the cancel l ati on of respondent's uni on regi strati on. For fraud and mi srepresentati on to be
grounds for cancel l ati on of uni on regi strati on under Arti cl e 239 of the Labor Code, the nature of the fraud and
mi srepresentati on must be grave and compel l i ng enough to vi ti ate the consent of a majori ty of uni on members.

As to peti ti oner's argument that the total number of i ts empl oyees as of May 1, 2009 was 470, and not 396 as
respondent cl ai med, sti l l the 117 uni on members compri sed more than the 20% membershi p requi rement for
respondent's regi strati on.

In Mariwasa Siam Ceramics v. Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, we sai d: For the purpose of
de-certi fyi ng a uni on such as respondent, i t must be shown that there was mi srepresentati on, fal se statement or
fraud i n connecti on wi th the adopti on or rati fi cati on of the consti tuti on and by-l aws or amendments thereto, the
mi nutes of rati fi cati on; or, i n connecti on wi th the el ecti on of offi cers, the mi nutes of the el ecti on of offi cers, the
l i st of voters, or fai l ure to submi t these documents together wi th the l i st of the newl y el ected-appoi nted offi cers
and thei r postal addresses to the BLR.

The bare fact that two si gnatures appeared twi ce on the l i st of those who parti ci pated i n the organi zati onal
meeti ng woul d not, to our mi nd, provi de a val i d reason to cancel respondent’s certi fi cate of regi strati on. The
cancel l ati on of a uni on’s regi strati on doubtl ess has an i mpai ri ng di mensi on on the ri ght of l abor to sel f-
organi zati on. For fraud and mi srepresentati on to be grounds for cancel l ati on of uni on regi strati on under the Labor
Code, the nature of the fraud and mi srepresentati on must be grave and compel l i ng enough to vi ti ate the consent
of a majori ty of uni on members.

In thi s case, we agree wi th the BLR and the CA that respondent coul d not have possi bl y commi tted
mi srepresentati on, fraud, or fal se statements. The al l eged fai l ure of respondent to i ndi cate wi th mathemati cal
preci si on the total number of empl oyees i n the bargai ni ng uni t i s of no moment, especi al l y as i t was abl e to compl y
wi th the 20% mi ni mum membershi p requi rement. Even i f the total number of rank-and-fi l e empl oyees of
peti ti oner i s 528, whi l e respondent decl ared that i t shoul d onl y be 455, i t s ti l l cannot be deni ed that the l atter
woul d have more than compl i ed wi th the regi strati on requi rement. Republ i c of the Phi l i ppi nes


44. G.R. No. L-54334 January 22, 1986
KIOK LOY, doing business under the name and style SWEDEN ICE CREAM PLANT, petitioner,
vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) and PAMBANSANG KILUSAN NG PAGGAWA
(KILUSAN), respondents.

FACTS: In a certi fi cati on el ecti on, the Pambansang Ki l usang Paggawa (Uni on for short), a l egi ti mate l ate l abor
federati on, won and was subsequentl y certi fi ed i n a resol uti on by the Bureau of Labor Rel ati ons as the sol e and
excl usi ve bargai ni ng agent of the rank-and-fi l e empl oyees of Sweden Ice Cream Pl ant (Company for short).

Thereafter, the Uni on furni shed the Company wi th two copi es of i ts proposed col l ecti ve bargai ni ng agreement. At
the same ti me, i t requested the Company for i ts counter proposal s. El i ci ti ng no response to the aforesai d request,
the Uni on agai n wrote the Company rei terati ng i ts request for col l ecti ve bargai ni ng negoti ati ons and for the
Company to furni sh them wi th i ts counter proposal s. Both requests were i gnored and remai ned unacted upon by
the Company.
Left wi th no other al ternati ve i n i ts attempt to bri ng the Company to the bargai ni ng tabl e, the Uni on, fi l ed a
"Noti ce of Stri ke", wi th the Bureau of Labor Rel ati ons (BLR) on ground of unresol ved economi c i ssues i n col l ecti ve
bargai ni ng.


Attempts towards an ami cabl e settl ement fai l ed, prompti ng the Bureau of Labor Rel ati ons to certi fy the case to
the Nati onal Labor Rel ati ons Commi ssi on (NLRC) for compul sory arbi trati on pursuant to Presi denti al Decree No.
823, as amended. The l abor arbi ter, rendered a deci si on that respondent Sweden Ice Cream i s gui l ty of unjusti fi ed
refusal to bargai n, i n vi ol ati on of Secti on (g) Arti cl e 248 (now Arti cl e 249), of P.D. 442, as amended.

Peti ti oner now comes before Us assai l i ng the aforesai d deci si on contendi ng that the Nati onal Labor Rel ati ons
Commi ssi on acted wi thout or i n excess of i ts juri sdi cti on or wi th grave abuse of di screti on amounti ng to l ack of
juri sdi cti on i n renderi ng the chal l enged deci si on. On August 4, 1980, thi s Court di smi ssed the peti ti on for l ack of
meri t.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Col l ecti ve Bargai ni ng agreement i s unreasonabl e?

HELD: Col l ecti ve bargai ni ng whi ch i s defi ned as negoti ati ons towards a col l ecti ve agreement

i s one of the
democrati c frameworks under the New Labor Code, desi gned to stabi l i ze the rel ati on between l abor and
management and to create a cl i mate of sound and stabl e i ndus tri al peace. It i s a mutual responsi bi l i ty of the
empl oyer and the Uni on and i s characteri zed as a l egal obl i gati on. So much so that Arti cl e 249, par. (g) of the Labor
Code makes i t an unfai r l abor practi ce for an empl oyer to refuse "to meet and convene pr omptl y and expedi ti ousl y
i n good fai th for the purpose of negoti ati ng an agreement wi th respect to wages, hours of work, and al l other
terms and condi ti ons of empl oyment i ncl udi ng proposal s for adjusti ng any gri evance or questi on ari si ng under
such an agreement and executi ng a contract i ncorporati ng such agreement, i f requested by ei ther party.

Whi l e i t i s a mutual obl i gati on of the parti es to bargai n, the empl oyer, however, i s not under any l egal duty to
i ni ti ate contract negoti ati on.

The mechani cs of col l ecti ve bargai ni ng i s set i n moti on onl y when the fol l owi ng
juri sdi cti onal precondi ti ons are present, namel y, (1) possessi on of the status of majori ty representati on of the
empl oyees' representati ve i n accordance wi th any of the means of sel ecti on or desi gnati on provi ded for by the
Labor Code; (2) proof of majori ty representati on; and (3) a demand to bargai n under Arti cl e 251, par. (a) of the
New Labor Code . ... al l of whi ch precondi ti ons are undi sputedl y present i n the i nstant case.

The Supreme Court i s not persuaded by peti ti oner-company's stand that the Col l ecti ve Bargai ni ng Agreement
whi ch was approved and adopted by the NLRC i s a total nul l i ty for i t l acks the company's consent, much l ess i ts
argument that once the Col l ecti ve Bargai ni ng Agreement i s i mpl emented, the Company wi l l face the prospect of
cl osi ng down because i t has to pay a staggeri ng amount of economi c benefi ts to the Uni on that wi l l equal i f not
exceed i ts capi tal . Such a stand and the evi dence i n support thereof shoul d have been presented before the Labor
Arbi ter whi ch i s the proper forum for the purpose.

The Supreme Court agree wi th the pronouncement that i t i s not obl i gatory upon ei ther si de of a l abor controversy
to preci pi tatel y accept or agree to the proposal s of the other. But an erri ng party shoul d not be tol erated and
al l owed wi th i mpuni ty to resort to schemes fei gni ng negoti ati ons by goi ng through empty gestures.

More so, as i n
the i nstant case, where the i nterventi on of the Nati onal Labor Rel ati ons Commi ssi on was properl y sought for after
conci l i ati on efforts undertaken by the BLR fai l ed. The i nstant case bei ng a certi fi ed one, i t must be resol ved by the
NLRC pursuant to the mandate of P.D. 873, as amended, whi ch authori zes the sai d body to determi ne the
reasonabl eness of the terms and condi ti ons of empl oyment embodi ed i n any Col l ecti ve Bargai ni ng Agreement. To
that extent, utmost deference to i ts fi ndi ngs of reasonabl eness of any Col l ecti ve Bargai ni ng Agreement as the
governi ng agreement by the empl oyees and management must be accorded due respect by thi s Court.

45. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 146728. February 11, 2004

Facts: General Mi l l i ng Corporati on empl oyed 190 workers. Al l the empl oyees were members of a uni on whi ch i s a
dul y certi fi ed bargai ni ng agent. The GMC and the uni on entered i nto a col l ecti ve bargai ni ng agreement whi ch
i ncl uded the i ssue of representati on that i s effecti ve for a term of three years whi ch wi l l expi re on November 30,
1991. On November 29, 1991, a day before the expi rati on of the CBA, the uni on sent GMC a proposed CBA, wi th a
request that a counter proposal be submi tted wi thi n ten days. On October 1991, GMC recei ved col l ecti ve and
i ndi vi dual l etters from the uni on members stati ng that they have wi thdrawn from thei r uni on membershi p. On
December 19, 1991, the uni on di scl ai med any massi ve di saffi l i ati on of i ts uni on members. On January 13, 1992,
GMC di smi ssed an empl oyee who i s a uni on member. The uni on protected the empl oyee and requested GMC to
submi t to the gri evance procedure provi ded by the CBA, but GMC argued that there was no basi s to negoti ate wi th
a uni on whi ch i s no l onger exi sti ng. The uni on then fi l ed a case wi th the Labor Arbi ter but the l atter rul ed that
there must fi rst be a certi fi cati on el ecti on to determi ne i f the uni on sti l l enjoys the support of the workers.

Issue: Whether or not GMC i s gui l ty of unfai r l abor practi ce for vi ol ati ng i ts duty to bargai n col l ecti vel y and/or for
i nterferi ng wi th the ri ght of i ts empl oyees to sel f-organi zati on.

Hel d: GMC i s gui l ty of unfai r l abor practi ce when i t refused to negoti ate wi th the uni on upon i ts request for the
renegoti ati on of the economi c terms of the CBA on November 29, 1991. The uni on’s proposal was submi tted
wi thi n the prescri bed 3-year peri od from the date of effecti vel y of the CBA. It was obvi ous that GMC had no val i d
reason to refuse to negoti ate i n good fai th wi th the uni on. The refusal to send counter proposal to the uni on and
to bargai n anew on the economi c terms of the CBA i s tantamount to an unfai r l abor practi ce under Arti cl e 248 of
the Labor Code.
Under Arti cl e 252 of the Labor Code, both parti es are requi red to perform thei r mutual obl i gati on to meet and
convene promptl y and expedi ti ousl y i n good fai th for the purpose of negoti ati ng an agreement. The uni on l i ved up
to thi s obl i gati on when i t presented proposal s for a new CBA to GMC wi thi n 3 years from the effecti vi ty of the
ori gi nal CBA. But GMC fai l ed i n i ts duty under Arti cl e 252. What i t di d was to devi se a fl i msy excuse, by questi oni ng
the exi stence of the uni on and the status of i ts membershi p to prevent any negoti ati on. It bears stressi ng that the
procedure i n col l ecti ve bargai ni ng prescribed by the Code i s mandatory because of the basi c i nterest of the state i n
ensuri ng l asti ng i ndustri al peace.

The Court of Appeal s found that the l etters between February to June, 1993 by 13 uni on members si gni fyi ng thei r
resi gnati on from the uni on cl earl y i ndi cated that GMC exerted pressure on the empl oyees. We agree wi th the
Court of Appeal s’ concl usi on that the i l l -ti med l etters of resi gnati on from the uni on members i ndi cate that GMC
i nterfered wi th the ri ght of i ts empl oyee to sel f-organi zati on.


46. G.R. No. 104624 October 11, 1996
SAN PEDRO HOSPITAL OF DIGOS, INC., petitioner, vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR, THE SAN PEDRO HOSPITAL
EMPLOYEES UNION — NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR, respondents.

FACTS: Peti ti oner had a three-year col l ecti ve bargai ni ng agreement (CBA) coveri ng the peri od December 15, 1987
unti l December 15, 1990, wi th herei n pri vate respondent, Nagkabiusang Mamumuo sa San Pedro Hospital of Digos
— National Federation of Labor (NAMASAP-NFL), the excl usi ve bargai ni ng agent of the hospi tal ’s rank-and-fi l e
workers. After the parti es fai l ed to reach agreement on the i ssues of rai si ng wages, the uni on duri ng the meeti ng
of February 19, 1991 decl ared a deadl ock.
On February 20, 1991, respondent uni on saturated peti ti oner’s premi ses wi th streamers and pi cketed the hospi tal .
The operati ons of the hospi tal havi ng come to a gri ndi ng hal t, the hospi tal management consi dered the uni on
acti ons as tantamount to a stri ke. On May 28, 1991, respondent uni on struck. Despi te the NCMB’s cal l for a
conci l i ati on conference, nurses and nurse ai des who were members of the uni on abandoned thei r respecti ve
department and joi ned the pi cket l i ne a week l ater. Doctors began l eavi ng the hospi tal and the number of pati ents
dwi ndl ed. The l ast pati ent was di scharged on June 10, 1991.
On June 12, 1991, a “Noti ce of Temporary Suspensi on of Operati on” was i ssued by peti ti oner hospi tal and
submi tted to the l ocal offi ce of the NCMB on June 14, 1991. Then Secretary of Labor Ni eves Confessor assumed
juri sdiction over the l abor di spute and i ssued an order di recti ng al l workers to return to work. However, thi s order
was recei ved by peti ti oner onl y on June 20, 1991. In the meanti me, i t had al ready noti fi ed the DOLE vi a i ts l etter
dated June 13, 1991, whi ch was recei ved by the DOLE on June 14, 1991, that i t woul d temporari l y suspend
operati ons for si x (6) months effecti ve June 15, 1991, or up to December 15, 1991. Peti ti oner thus refused the
return of i ts stri ki ng workers on account of such suspensi on of operati ons.

ISSUE: WON the Secretary can val i dl y compel the empl oyer to enter i nto a new CBA even duri ng temporary
suspensi on of operati ons

HELD: Temporary suspensi on of operati ons i s recogni zed as a val i d exerci se of management prerogati ve provi ded
i t i s not carri ed out i n order to ci rcumvent the provi si ons of the Labor Code or to defeat the ri ghts of the
empl oyees under the Code. The determi nati on to cease or suspend operati ons i s a prerogati ve of management
that the State usual ly does not i nterfere wi th, as no busi ness can be requi red to conti nue operati ng at a l oss si mply
to mai ntai n the workers i n empl oyment. Such an act woul d be tantamount to a taki ng of property wi thout due
process of l aw, whi ch the empl oyer has a ri ght to resi st. But where i t i s shown that the cl osure i s moti vated not by
a desi re to prevent further l osses, but to di scourage the workers from organi zi ng themsel ves i nto a uni on for more
effecti ve negoti ati on wi th management, the State i s bound to i ntervene.

The burden of provi ng that such a temporary suspensi on i s bona fide fal l s upon the empl oyer. In thi s i nstance,
peti ti oner had to establ i sh the fact of i ts precari ous fi nanci al heal th, that i ts cessati on of operati on was real l y
necessi tated by i ts fi nanci al condi ti on, and that sai d condi ti on woul d probabl y be al l evi ated or i mproved, or i ts
l osses abated, by undertaki ng such suspensi on of operati on. The fact that the conci l i ator never asked for them i s
no suffi ci ent excuse for not presenti ng the same, as such was peti ti oner’s duty. Nei ther i s i t acceptabl e for
peti ti oner to al l ege that l atest fi nanci al statement (for the year 1991) were sti l l bei ng prepared by i ts accountants
and not yet ready for submi ssi on, si nce the fi nanci al statement for the pri or years 1989 and 1990 woul d have
suffi ced.

It i s a hornbook rul e that empl oyers who contempl ate termi nati ng the servi ces of thei r workers must base thei r
deci si ons on more than just fl i msy excuses, consi deri ng that the di smi ssal of an empl oyee from work i nvol ves not
onl y the l oss of hi s posi ti on but, what i s more i mportant, hi s means of l i vel i hood. The same pri nci pl e appl i es i n
temporary suspensi on of operati ons, as i n thi s case, consi deri ng that i t i nvol ves l ayi ng off empl oyees for a peri od
of si x months. Peti ti oner, havi ng wretchedl y fai l ed to justi fy by even the most rudi mentary proof i ts temporary
suspensi on of operati ons, must bear the consequences thereof. We thus hol d that the Secretary of Labor and
Empl oyment di d not act wi th grave abuse of di screti on i n fi ndi ng the temporary suspensi on unjustifi ed and i l l egal .

The order of the secretary i n orderi ng the hospi tal to enter i nto a new CBA was val i d.
Secretary was of the i mpressi on that peti ti oner woul d operate agai n after the l apse of the si x-month suspensi on of
operati ons on December 16, 1991, and so ordered the parti es to enter i nto and formal i ze a new CBA to govern
thei r rel ati ons upon resumpti on of operati ons. On the other hand, the aforequoted porti on of the Order must be
understood i n the context of the Secretary’s fi ndi ng that the temporary suspensi on was onl y for ci rcumventi ng the
return-to-work order, but i n spi te of whi ch he hel d that he coul d not order peti ti oner to conti nue operati ons as
“thi s woul d i nfri nge on i ts i nherent ri ght to manage and conduct i ts own busi ness affai rs”; he thus ordered i nstead
the payment of backwages to the returni ng workers who were refused admi ttance by peti ti oner on June 21, 1991.
And as above adverted to, he al so ordered the parti es to execute a new CBA to govern thei r rel ati ons upon the
expi ry of the peri od of suspensi on and the resumpti on of normal operati ons.

Di d the Secretary act i n excess of juri sdi cti on i n i mposi ng the wage i ncrease a nd uni on shop provi si on on the
peti ti oner? We hol d that he di d not. Whi l e peti ti oner cannot be forced to abandon i ts suspensi on of operati ons
even i f sai d suspensi on be decl ared unjusti fi ed, i l l egal and i nval i d, nei ther can peti ti oner evade i ts obl i gati on to
bargai n wi th the uni on, usi ng the cessati on of i ts busi ness as reason therefor. For, as al ready i ndi cated above, the
empl oyer-empl oyee rel ati onshi p was merel y suspended (and not termi nated) for the durati on of the temporary
suspensi on. Usi ng the suspensi on as an excuse to evade the duty to bargai n i s further proof of i ts i l l egal i ty. It
shows abuse of thi s opti on and bad fai th on the part of peti ti oner. And si nce i t refused to bargai n, wi thout val i d
and suffi ci ent cause, the Secretary i n the exerci se of hi s powers under Arti cl e 263(i ) of the Labor Code to deci de
and resol ve l abor di sputes, properl y granted the wage i ncrease and i mposed the uni on shop provi si on.

Notwi thstandi ng that respondent Secretary di d not act wi th grave abuse of di screti on i n i ssui ng the chal l enged
Orders, we cannot i gnore the superveni ng event whi ch occurred after December 15, 1991, i.e., the
subsequent permanent cessati on of peti ti on of peti ti oner on account of l osses.Thus, despi te the absence of grave
abuse of di screti on on the part of the respondent Secretary, thi s Court cannot i mpose upon peti ti oner the di recti ve
to enter i nto a new CBA wi th the uni on for the very si mpl e reason that to do so woul d be to compel peti ti oner to
conti nue i ts busi ness when i t had al ready deci ded to cl ose shop, and that woul d be judi ci al tyranny on our part.


47. BPI VS BPI EMPLOYEES UNION
Facts: The BSP approved the Arti cl es of Merger executed on January 20, 2000 by and between BPI, and FEBTC. Thi s
Arti cl e and Pl an of Merger was approved by the SEC on Apri l 7, 2000.Pursuant to the Arti cl e and Pl an of Merger, all
the assets and l i abi l i ti es of FEBTC were transferred to and absorbed by BPI as the survi vi ng corporati on. FEBTC
empl oyees, i ncl udi ng those i n i ts di fferent branches across the country, were hi red by peti ti oner as i ts own
empl oyees, wi th thei r status and tenure recogni zed and sal ari es and benefi ts mai ntai ned. Respondent BPI
Empl oyees Uni on-Davao Chapter-Federati on of Uni ons i n BPI Uni bank i s the excl usi ve bargai ni ng agent of
BPI’s rank and fi l e empl oyees i n Davao Ci ty. The former FEBTC rank-and-fi l e empl oyees i n Davao Ci ty di d not
bel ong to any l abor uni on at the ti me of the merger. Pri or to the effecti vi ty of the merger, respondent uni on
i nvi ted sai d FEBTC empl oyees to a meeti ng regardi ng the Uni on Shop Cl ause of the exi sti ng CBA between
peti ti oner BPI and respondent uni on. The parti es both advert to certai n provi si ons of the exi sti ng CBA. After the
meeti ng cal l ed by the uni on, some of the former FEBTC empl oyees joi ned the uni on, whi l e others refused. Later,
however, some of those who i ni ti al l y joi ned retracted thei r membershi p. Respondent uni on then sent noti ces to
the former FEBTC empl oyees who refused to joi n, as wel l as those who retracted thei r membershi p and cal l ed
them to a heari ng regardi ng the matter. When these former FEBTC empl oyees refused to attend the heari ng, the
presi dent of the Uni on requested BPI to i mpl ement the Uni on Shop Cl ause of the CBA and to termi nate
thei r empl oyment. After two months of management i nacti on on the reques t, respondent i nformed peti ti oner of
i ts deci si on to refer the i ssue of the i mpl ementati on of the Uni on Shop Cl ause of the CBA to the Gri evance
Commi ttee. However, the i ssue remai ned unresol ved at thi s l evel and so i t was subsequentl y submi tted for
vol untary arbi trati on by the parti es. Vol untary Arbi trator rul ed i n favor of peti ti oner BPI. Respondent Uni on fi l ed a
moti on for reconsi derati on, but the vol untary arbi trator deni ed the same. It appeal ed to the CA and the CA
reversed and set asi de the deci si on of the vol untary arbi trator. Hence, thi s peti ti on.
Issue: May a corporati on i nvoke i ts merger wi th another corporati on as a val i d ground to exempt i ts absorbed
empl oyees from the coverage of a uni on shop cl ause contai ned i n i ts exi sti ng CBA wi th i ts own certi fi ed l abor
uni on Empl oyment Contracts Si gni fi cantl y, too, the Arti cl es of Merger and Pl an of Merger dated Apri l 7, 2000 di d
not contai n any speci fi c sti pul ati on wi th respect to the empl oyment contracts of exi sti ng personnel of the non-
survi vi ng enti ty whi ch i s FEBTC. Unl i ke the Vol untary Arbi trator, thi s Court cannot uphol d the reasoni ng that the
general sti pul ati on regardi ng transfer of FEBTC assets and l i abi l i ti es to BPI as set forth i n the Arti cl es of Merger
necessari l y i ncl udes the transfer of al l FEBT Cempl oyees i nto the empl oy of BPI and nei ther BPI nor the FEBTC
empl oyees al l egedl y coul d do anythi ng about i t. Even i f i t i s so, i t does not fol l ow that the absorbed empl oyees
shoul d not be subject to the terms and condi ti ons of empl oyment obtai ni ng i n the survi vi ng corporati on. The rul e
i s that unl ess expressl y assumed, l abor contracts such as empl oyment contracts and col l ecti ve bargai ni ng
agreements are not enforceabl e agai nst a transferee of an enterpri se, l abor contracts bei ng i n personam, thus
bi ndi ng onl y between the parti es. A l abor contract merel y creates an acti on i n personam and does not create any
real ri ght whi ch shoul d be respected by thi rd parti es. Thi s concl usi on draws i ts force from the ri ght of an empl oyer
to sel ect hi s empl oyees and to deci de when to engage them as protected under our Consti tuti on, and the same
can onl y be restri cted by l aw through the exerci se of the pol i ce power.(BANK OF THEPHILIPPINE ISLANDS v.
BPI EMPLOYEES UNION-DAVAO CHAPTER-FEDERATIONOF UNIONS IN BPI UNIBANK, G.R. No. 164301, August 10,
2010)Equal i ty)

48. Rivera vs. Espiritu

FACTS: PAL i nformed the Inter-Agency Task Force created to address the probl ems of the ai l i ng fl ag carri er, that i t
was shutti ng down i ts operati ons cl ai mi ng that gi ven i ts l abor probl ems, rehabi l i tati on was no l onger feasi bl e.
The next day, the PAL Empl oyees Associ ati on (PALEA) sought the i nterventi on of the Offi ce of the Presi dent to
prevent the i mmi nent cl osure of PAL. PAL ceased i ts operati ons and sent noti ces of termi nati on to i ts empl oyees.
Two days l ater, PAWLA offered a 10-year moratori um on stri kes and si mi l ar acti ons and a wai ver of some of the
economi c benefi ts i n the exi sti ng CBA.

PAWLA board agai n wrote the Presi dent proposi ng terms and condi ti ons, subject to rati fi ca ti on by the general
membershi p. These i ncl ude the suspensi on of the PAL-PALEA CBA for a peri od of ten years, PAL’s conti nui ng
recogni ti on of PALEA as the certi fi ed bargai ni ng agent of the regul ar rank and fi l e ground empl oyees of the
company, respect for the “ uni on shop/mai ntenance of membershi p” provi si on under the PAL-PALEA CBA and no
sal ary deducti on wi th ful l medi cal benefi ts.

The PAL management accepted the PALEA proposal and the necessary referendum was schedul ed. Of the votes
cast, 61% of favored the PAL-PALEA agreement.

PAL resumed operati ons. On the same date, seven offi cers and members of PALEA fi l ed a peti ti on to annul the
agreement on the fol l owi ng grounds:

ISSUE: Whether or not PAL-PALEA agreement of September 27, 1998, sti pul ati ng the suspensi on of the PAL-PALEA
CBA unconsti tuti onal and contrary to publ i c pol i cy?

HELD: The assai l ed PAL-PALEA agreement was the resul t of vol untary col l ecti ve bargai ni ng negoti ati ons
undertaken i n the l i ght of the severe fi nanci al si tuati on faced by the empl oyer, wi th the pecul i ar and uni que
i ntenti on of not merel y promoti ng i ndustri al peace at PAL, but preventi ng the l atter’s cl osure. We fi nd no confl i ct
between sai d agreement and Arti cl e 253-A of the Labor Code. Arti cl e 253-A has a two-fol d purpose. One i s to
promote i ndustri al stabi l i ty and predi ctabi l i ty. Inasmuch as the agreement sought to promote i ndustri al peace at
PAL duri ng i ts rehabi l i tati on, sai d agreement sati sfi es the fi rst purpose of Arti cl e 253-A. The other i s to assi gn
speci fi c ti metabl es wherei n negoti ati ons become a matter of ri ght and requi rement. Nothi ng i n Arti cl e 253-A,
prohi bi ts the parti es from wai vi ng or suspendi ng the mandatory ti metabl es and agreei ng on the remedi es to
enforce the same.

In the i nstant case, i t was PALEA, as the excl usi ve bargai ni ng agent of PAL’s ground empl oyees, that vol untari l y
entered i nto the CBA wi th PAL. It was al so PALEA that vol untari l y opted for the 10-year suspensi on of the
CBA. Ei ther case was the uni on’s exerci se of i ts ri ght to col l ecti ve bargai ni ng. The ri ght to free col l ecti ve
bargai ni ng, after al l , i ncl udes the ri ght to suspend i t. The acts of publ i c respondents i n sancti oni ng the 10 -year
suspensi on of the PAL-PALEA CBA di d not contravene the “protecti on to l abor” pol i cy of the Consti tuti on. The
agreement afforded ful l protecti on to l abor; promoted the shared responsi bi l i ty between workers and empl oyers;
and the exerci sed voluntary modes i n settl i ng di sputes, i ncl udi ng conci l i ati on to foster i ndustri al peace."

It cl earl y shows the i ntent of the parti es to mai ntai n “uni on securi ty” duri ng the peri od of the suspensi on of the
CBA. Its objecti ve i s to assure the conti nued exi stence of PALEA duri ng the sai d peri od. We are unabl e to decl are
the objecti ve of uni on securi ty an unfai r l abor practi ce. It i s State pol i cy to promote uni oni sm to enabl e workers to
negoti ate wi th management on an even pl ayi ng fi el d and wi th more persuasi veness than i f they were to
i ndi vi dually and separatel y bargai n wi th the empl oyer. For thi s reason, the l aw has al l owed sti pul ations for “uni on
shop” and “cl osed shop” as means of encouragi ng workers to joi n and support the uni on of thei r choi ce i n the
protecti on of thei r ri ghts and i nterests vis-à-vis the empl oyer.


We al so do not agree that the agreement vi ol ates the fi ve-year representati on l i mi t mandated by Arti cl e 253-
A. Under sai d arti cl e, the representati on l i mi t for the excl usi ve bargai ni ng agent appl i es onl y when there i s an
extant CBA i n ful l force and effect. In the i nstant case, the parti es agreed to suspend the CBA and put i n abeyance
the l i mi t on the representati on peri od.

In sum, we are of the vi ew that the PAL-PALEA agreement i s a val i d exerci se of the freedom to contract. Under the
pri nci pl e of i nvi ol abi l i ty of contracts guaranteed by the Consti tuti on, the contract must be uphel d.


49. [G.R. No. 111262. September 19, 1996]
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION-PTGWO, represented by its President RAYMUNDO HIPOLITO,
JR., petitioner, vs. HON. MA. NIEVES D. CONFESOR, Secretary of Labor, Dept. of Labor & Employment, SAN
MIGUEL CORPORATION, MAGNOLIA CORPORATION (Formerly, Magnolia Plant) and SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INC.
(Formerly, B-Meg Plant), respondents.

Peti ti oner-uni on San Mi guel Corporati on Empl oyees Uni on - PTGWO entered i nto a Col l ecti ve Bargai ni ng
Agreement (CBA) wi th pri vate respondent San Mi guel Corporati on (SMC) to take effect upon the expi rati on of the
previ ous CBA or on June 30, 1989.
In keepi ng wi th thei r vi si on and l ong term strategy for busi ness expansi on, SMC management i nformed i ts
empl oyees that the company whi ch was composed of four operati ng di vi si ons namel y: (1) Beer, (2) Packagi ng, (3)
Feeds and Li vestocks, (4) Magnol i a and Agri -busi ness woul d undergo a restructuri ng.
Magnol i a and Feeds and Li vestock Di vi si on were spun-off and became two separate and di sti nct corporati ons:
Magnol i a Corporati on (Magnol i a) and San Mi guel Foods, Inc. (SMFI). Notwi thstandi ng the spi n-offs, the CBA
remai ned i n force and effect.
After June 30, 1992, the CBA was renegoti ated i n accordance wi th the terms of the CBA and Arti cl e 253-A of the
Labor Code. Negoti ati ons started someti me i n Jul y, 1992 wi th the two parti es submi tti ng thei r respecti ve
proposal s and counterproposal s.
Unabl e to agree on the i ssues wi th respect to the bargai ni ng uni t and durati on of the CBA, peti ti oner -uni on
decl ared a deadl ock. A Noti ce of Stri ke was fi l ed agai nst SMC.
pri vate respondents SMC, Magnol i a and SMFI fi l ed a peti ti on wi th the Secretary of Labor prayi ng that the l atter
assume juri sdi cti on over the l abor di spute i n a vi tal i ndustry.the Secretary of Labor i ssued the assai l ed Order
di recti ng, among others, that the renegoti ated terms of the CBA shal l be effecti ve for the per i od of three (3) years
from June 30, 1992.
Di ssati sfi ed, peti ti oner-uni on now comes to thi s Court questi oni ng thi s Order of the Secretary of Labor.
ISSUE: Whether or not the durati on of the renegoti ated terms of the CBA i s to be effecti ve for three years or for
onl y two years
HELD: Arti cl e 253-A i s a new provi si on. Thi s was i ncorporated by Secti on 21 of Republ i c Act No. 6715 (the Herrera -
Vel oso Law) whi ch took effect on March 21, 1989. Thi s new provi si on states that the CBA has a term of fi ve (5)
years i nstead of three years, before the amendment of the l aw as far as the representati on aspect i s
concerned. Al l other provi si ons of the CBA shal l be negoti ated not l ater than three (3) years after i ts
executi on. The “representati on aspect” refers to the i denti ty and majori ty status of the uni on that negoti ated the
CBA as the excl usi ve bargai ni ng representati ve of the appropri ate bargai ni ng uni t concerned. “Al l other
provi si ons” si mpl y refers to the rest of the CBA, economi c as wel l as non-economi c provi si ons, except
representati on.
As the Secretary of Labor hersel f observed i n the i nstant case, the l aw i s cl ear and defi ni te on the durati on of the
CBA i nsofar as the representati on aspect i s concerned, but i s qui te ambi guous wi th the terms of the other
provi si ons of the CBA. It i s a cardi nal pri nci pl e of statutory constructi on that the Court must ascertai n the
l egi sl ati ve i ntent for the purpose of gi vi ng effect to any statute. The hi story of the ti mes and state of the thi ngs
exi sti ng when the act was framed or adopted must be fol l owed and the condi ti ons of the thi ngs at the ti me of the
enactment of the l aw shoul d be consi dered to determi ne the l egi sl ati ve i ntent.
Obvi ousl y, the framers of the l aw wanted to mai ntai n i ndustri al peace and stabi l i ty by havi ng both management
and l abor work harmoni ousl y together wi thout any di sturbance. Thus, no outsi de uni on can enter the
establ i shment wi thi n fi ve (5) years and chal l enge the status of the i ncumbent uni on as the excl usi ve bargai ni ng
agent. Li kewi se, the terms and condi ti ons of empl oyment (economi c and non-economi c) can not be questi oned by
the empl oyers or empl oyees duri ng the peri od of effecti vi ty of the CBA. The CBA i s a contract between the parti es
and the parti es must respect the terms and condi ti ons of the agreement.
[14]
Notabl y, the framers of the l aw di d not
gi ve a fi xed term as to the effecti vi ty of the terms and condi ti ons of empl oyment. It can be gl eaned from thei r
di scussi ons that i t was l eft to the parti es to fi x the peri od.
In the i nstant case, i t i s not di ffi cul t to determi ne the peri od of effecti vi ty for the non-representati on provi si ons of
the CBA. Taki ng i t from the hi story of thei r CBAs, SMC i ntended to have the terms of the CBA effecti ve for three
(3) years reckoned from the expi rati on of the ol d or previ ous CBA whi ch was on June 30, 1989.


50. LMG Chemical Corporation v Sec of DOLE
GR. 127422, April 17, 2001
Sandoval -Guti errez, J.;
Facts:
LMH Chemi cal s Corp., i s a domesti c corporati on engaged i n the manufacture and sal e of vari ous ki nds of chemi cal
substance. Someti me i n December 1995, peti ti oner and respondent uni on started a negoti ati on for a new CBA as
thei r ol d CBA was about to expi re. Issues wi th regard the i ncrease of wage were not settl ed whi ch eventual l y l ed to
a deadl ock. Respondent uni on fi l ed a Noti ce of Stri ke. The Sec of Labor, fi ndi ng the i nstant l abor di spute i mpressed
wi th nati onal i nterest, assumed juri sdi cti on over the same. On October 1996, i t then granted the i ncrease of wage
and hel d the new CBA shal l be i n effect starti ng January 1, 1996.
Issue: Whether or not the Sec of Labor commi tted grave abuse of di screti on i n decreei ng that the new CBA to be
si gned by the parti es shal l have retroacti ve effect.
Ruling:
The Court hel d that respondent Secretary assumed juri sdi cti on over the di spute because i t i s i mpressed wi th
nati onal i nterest. As notes by the Secretary, “the peti ti oner was then suppl yi ng sul fate requi rements of MWSS and
sul furi c aci d of NAPOCOR, and consequentl y, the conti nuati on of the stri ke woul d seri ousl y affect the water and
power suppl y.” Such authori ty of the Secretary to assume juri sdi cti on carri es wi th i t the power to determi ne the
retroacti vi ty of the parti es’ CBA. It i s wel l settl ed i n our juri sprudence that the authori ty of the Secretary to assume
juri sdiction over l abor di spute causi ng or l i kel y to cause a stri ke or l ockout i n an i ndustry i ndi spensabl e to nati onal
i nterest i ncl udes and extends to al l questi ons and controversi es ari si ng therefrom. The power i s pl enary and
di screti onary i n nature to enabl e hi m to effecti vel y and effi ci entl y di spose of the pri mary di spute.

51. Manila Electric Company v Quisumbing
GR. 127598, January 27, 1999
Marti nez, J.:
Facts:
MEWA, a dul y recogni zed l abor organi zati on of the rank-and-fi l e empl oyees of MERALCO, entered i nto a re-
negoti ati on wi th the l atter coveri ng the remai ni ng peri od of two years from the CBA. However, despi te the
meeti ngs, both parti es fai l ed to arri ve at agreement. Thi s resul ted to the fi l i ng of Noti ce of Stri ke by MEWA wi th
the NCMB. Faced wi th the possi bi l i ty of stri ke, MERALCO fi l ed a peti ti on wi th the Secretary to assume juri sdi cti on.
The Labor Secretary granted the peti ti on favouri ng MEWA. On appeal , one of MERALCO’s questi oned order i s the
effecti vi ty date of the new CBA. The retroact date of December 1, 1995, the date of the commencement of the l ast
two years of the effecti vi ty of the exi sti ng CBA, i s sai d to be contrary to juri sprudence whi ch mandates that the
effecti vi ty date shoul d be the date the Secretary of Labor resol ved the di spute. On the other hand, MEWA
supports the rul i ng on the theory that he has pl enary power and di screti on to fi x the date of effecti vi ty of hi s
arbi tral award.
Ruling:
The l aw does not speci fi cal l y cover the si tuati on where the 6 months have el apsed but no agreement has been
reached wi th respect to effecti vi ty. In thi s event, the Court hol ds that any provi si on shoul d then appl y for the l aw
abhors a vacuum. One such provi si on i s the pri nci pl e of hol d over, i .e., that i n the absence of a new CBA, the
parti es must mai ntai n status quo and must conti nue i n ful l force and effect the terms and condi ti ons of the exi sting
agreement unti l a new agreement i s reached. In thi s manner, the l aw prevents the exi stence of a gap i n the
rel ati onshi p between the col l ecti ve bargai ni ng parti es. Another l egal pri nci pl e that shoul d appl y i s that i n the
absence of an agreement between the parti es, then , an arbi trated CBA takes on the nature of any judi ci al or
quasi -judicial CBA takes on the nature of any judi ci al or quasi -judicial award; i t operates and may be executed onl y
respecti vel y unl ess there are l egal justi fi cati ons for i ts retroacti ve appl i cati on.
Consequentl y, the Court found no suffi ci ent l egal ground on the other justi fi cati on for the retroacti ve appl i cati on
of the di sputed CBA, and therefore hol d that the CBA shoul d be effecti ve for a term of 2 years counted from
December 28, 1996 (the date of the Secretary of Labor’s di sputed order on the parti es’ moti on for reconsi derati on)
up to December 27, 1999.

52. FVC Labor Union-PH Transport v SANAMA-FVC-SIGLO
GR. 176249, November 27, 2009
Bri on, J.:
Facts:
The peti ti oner, recogni zed bargai ni ng agent of the rank-and-fi l e empl oyees of FVC PH Inc., si gned a 5year col l ecti ve
bargai ni ng agreement from February 1, 1998 to January 30, 2003. At the end of the 3
rd
year of the 5year term and
pursuant to the CBA, peti ti oner and company entered i nto the renegoti ati on extendi ng the same by four months
(May 31, 2003). Ni ne days before the end of the ori gi nal l y-agreed 5year CBA, respondent fi l ed before DOLE a
peti ti on for certi fi cati on for the same rank-and-fi l e uni t. Peti ti oner moved to di smi ss the peti ti on on the ground
that the certi fi cati on el ecti on was fi l ed outsi de the freedom peri od or outsi de the 60 days before the expi rati on of
the extended term. They further contend that the extensi on of the CBA term al so changed the uni on’s excl usi ve
bargai ni ng status.
Issue: Whether or not the extensi on of the CBA term affects the excl usi ve bargai ni ng status of an uni on.
Ruling:
The Court hel d that whi l e the parti es may agree to extend the CBA’s ori gi nal 5 year term together wi l l al l other CBA
provi si ons, any such amendment or term i n excess of 5 years wi l l not carry wi th i t a change i n the uni on’s excl usi ve
bargai ni ng status. By express provi si on of Arti cl e 253-A, the excl usi ve bargai ni ng status cannot go beyond 5 years
and the representati on status i s a l egal matter not for the workpl ace parti es to agree upon. In other words, despi te
an agreement for a CBA wi th a l i fe of more than 5 years - the uni on’s excl usi ve bargai ning status i s effecti ve onl y for
5 years and can be chal l enged wi thi n 6- days pri or to i ts expi rati on.

53. Benguet Consolidated Inc v BCI Employees & Workers Union
No. L-24711, April 30, 1968
Benzon, J.P.:
Facts:
Benguet-Bal atoc Workers Uni on (BBWU), for and i n behal f of al l peti ti oner’s empl oyees, entered i nto a Col l ecti ve
Bargai ni ng Contract. Embodi ed i n i t i s a No-Stri ke, No-Lockout cl ause. About 3years l ater, a certi fi cati on el ecti on
was conducted whi ch hel d herei n respondent as the wi nner. Subsequentl y, meeti ngs were conducted and as
further, a resol uti on was i ssued by the respondent members to fi l e a noti ce of stri ke agai nst peti ti oner. The str i ke
became unrul y, aggressi ve and threateni ng. It resul ted to damages to properti es of the company. As the parti es
agreed to end the di spute, peti ti oner sued respondent to recover for the amount of rehabi l i tati on sol el y on the
ground of breached of thei r undertaki ng i n the exi sti ng contract not to stri ke duri ng effecti vi ty. Peti ti oner i nvoked
the so-cal l ed ‘Doctri ne of Substi tuti on’.
Issue: Whether or not the CBA executed between Benguet and BBWU automati cal l y bi nd respondent uni on.
Ruling:
The Court hel d that the Pri nci ple rel i ed upon i s mi spl aced. Thi s occurs when a shi ft i n empl oyees’ uni on al l egi ance
after the executi on of a Col l ecti ve Bargai ni ng Contract wi th empl oyer, the empl oyees can change thei r agent but
the contract whi ch i s sti l l subsi sti ng, conti nues to bi nd the empl oyees up to i ts expi rati on date. In formul ati ng the
substi tuti onary doctri ne, the onl y consi derati on i nvol ved was the empl oyees’ i nterest i n the exi sti ng bargai ni ng
agreement. The agent’s i nterest never entered the pi cture. It onl y provi des that the empl oyees cannot revoke the
val i dl y executed col l ecti ve bargai ni ng contract by the si mpl e expedi ent of changi ng thei r bargai ni ng agent. In l i ght
of the phrase “sai d new agent woul d have to respect sai d contract,” i t onl y means that the empl oyees, thru thei r
new bargai ni ng agent, cannot renege on thei r col l ecti ve bargai ni ng contract, except to negoti ate wi th
management for the shorteni ng thereof.
The Substi tuti onary Doctri ne, therefore, cannot be i nvoked to support the contenti on that the new agent
automati cal l y assumes al l the personal undertaki ngs – l i ke no stri ke sti pul ati on- i n the CBA made by the deposed
uni on. When the BBWU bound i tsel f and i ts offi cers not to stri ke, i t coul d not bi nd al l the ri val uni ons because the
former was the agent onl y of the empl oyees, not of the other uni ons whi ch possess di sti nct personal i ti es.

54. Capitol Medical Center Alliance of Concerned Employees v Laguesma
GR No. 118915, February 4, 1997
Hermosi si ma, JR. J.:
Facts:
Respondent uni on peti ti oned for certi fi cati on el ecti on among the rank-and-fi l e empl oyees of Capi tol Medi cal
Center. It was subsequentl y granted. However, CMC appeal ed the same by questi oni ng the l egal status of
respondent uni on’s affi l i ati on. As recourse, respondent regi stered i ndependentl y. El ecti ons were hel d decl ari ng
respondent uni on as the sol e and excl usi ve bargai ni ng representati ve. Unsati sfi ed wi th the outcome, CMC
appeal ed the same contendi ng the supposed pendency for cancel l ati on of respondent’s certi fi cate of regi strati on.
Such i ssue rai sed the Supreme Court decl ari ng respondent uni on as the certi fi ed bargai ni ng agent. In spi te
decl arati on, CMC refused to bargai n col l ecti vel y whi ch then l ed to a noti ce of stri ke. Secretary of Labor assumed
juri sdi cti on for i ts compul sory arbi trati on whi ch i s sti l l pendi ng.
Subsequentl y, peti ti oner uni on fi l ed a peti ti on for certi fi cati on el ecti on- cl ai mi ng that i t can now be conducted
si nce 12months have l apsed si nce the l ast certi fi cati on el ecti on and no CBA was concl uded. Med-arbi ter granted
the peti ti on, rul i ng that there was no bargai ni ng deadl ock submi tted to conci l i ati on.
Issue: Whether or not there i s a bargai ni ng deadl ock.
Ruling:
In the case of Di vi ne Word, Uni versi ty of Tacl oban v Secretary of Labor, deadl ock i s defi ned ‘ the counterclaim of
things producing entire stoppage; xxx. There is a deadlock when there is a complete blocking or stoppage resulting
from the action of equal and opposed forces xxx. The word is synonymous with the word impasse, which xxx
‘presupposes reasonable effort at good faith bargaining which, despite noble intentions, does not conclude in
agreement between the parties.’
Al though there i s no deadl ock i n i ts stri ct sense, such can be attri buted to CMC’s faul t as the bargai ni ng proposal of
respondent’s uni on was never answered. The Court further hel d that the case i s worse than a deadl ock for CMC
empl oyed al l l egal means to bl ock the certi fi cati on of respondent uni on as bargai ni ng agent. Thus, i t can onl y be
concl uded that CMC was unwi l l i ng to negoti ate and reach an agreement wi th respondent uni on. It i s onl y just and
equi tabl e that the ci rcumstances i n thi s case be consi dered as si mi l ar i n nature to a ‘bargai ni ng deadl ock’ when no
certi fi cati on coul d be hel d. Thi s i s al so to make sure that no fl oodgates wi l l be opened for the ci rcumventi on of the
l aw by unscrupul ous empl oyers to prevent any certi fi ed bargai ni ng agent from negoti ati on a CBA.

55. Caltex Refinery Employees Association v Brillantes
GR. No. 123783, September 16, 1997
Pangani ban, J.:
Facts:
Anti ci pati ng the expi rati on of thei r CBA, peti ti oner and pri vate respondent negoti ated the terms and condi ti ons of
empl oyment to be contai ned i n a new CBA. The negoti ati on between the two parti es was parti ci pated i n by the
NCMB and Offi ce of Secretary of l abor. Some i tems i n the new CBA were ami cabl y arri ved at and agreed upon, but
others were unresol ved. To settl e the i ssues, meeti ngs were conducted but to no avai l . Peti ti oner decl ared a
deadl ock and fol l owed by fi l i ng of Noti ce of Stri ke. DOLE assumed juri sdi cti on enjoi ni ng the stri ke or l ockout. In
defi ance of the order, peti ti oner conti nued wi th thei r mass acti on. Secretary of Labor then i ssued orders - di recti ng
both parti es to execute a new CBA embodyi ng the appropri ate di sposi ti ons spel l ed out i ncl udi ng those subject of
previ ous agreements; and that no more moti ons wi l l be further entertai ned.
Issue: Whether or not the Secretary of Labor and Empl oyment commi tted grave abuse of di screti on i n resol vi ng
the i nstant l abor di spute.
Rul i ng:
The Court hel d that the Secretary of Labor cannot be i ndi cated for grave abuse of di screti on. Peti ti oner’s cl ai m i s
anchored onl y on the si mpl e fact that publ i c respondent adopted l argel y the proposal s of pri vate respondent. It
shoul d be understood that bargai ni ng i s not equi val ent to an adversari al l iti gation where ri ghts and obl i gati ons are
del i neated and remedi es appl i ed. It i s si mpl y a process of fi ndi ng a reasonabl e sol uti on to a confl i ct and
harmoni zi ng opposi te posi ti ons i nto a fai r and reasonabl e compromi se. When parti es agree to submi t unresol ved
i ssues to the Secretary for resol uti on, they shoul d not expect thei r posi ti ons to be adopted in toto. It i s understood
that they defer to wi sdom and objecti vi ty i n i nsuri ng i ndustri al peace. And unl ess they can cl earl y demonstrate
bi as, arbi trari ness, capri ci ousness or personal hosti l i ty on the part of such publ i c offi cer, the Court wi l l not
i nterfere or substi tute the offi cer’s judgment wi th i ts own. Thi s i s parti cul arl y true i n resol vi ng of controversi es i n
CBAs where the questi on i s rarel y one of l egal ri ght or wrong, but one of wi sdom, cogency and compromi se as to
what i s possi bl e, fai r and reasonabl e under the ci rcumstances.

56. University of the East v Pepanio
GR No. 193897, January 13, 2013
Abad. J.:
Facts:
In 1992, DECS i ssued a Revi sed Manual Regul ati ons for Pri vate School s whi ch requi red col l ege facul ty members to
have a master’s degree as a mi ni mum educati onal qual i fi cati on for acqui ri ng regul ar status. Peti ti oner UE and UE
Facul ty executed a 5year CBA whi ch provi ded an onl y semester -to-semester appoi ntments to facul ty who do not
possess the mi ni mum qual i fi cati ons. A further order was i ssued that “teachi ng or academi c personnel who do not
meet the mi ni mum qual i fi cati on shal l not acqui re tenure or regul ar status.” Respondents Bueno and Pepani o are
not qual i fied for probati onary or regul ar status because they l acked postgraduate degrees. A new CBA was entered
extendi ng probati onary provi ded i t woul d be l ater compl i ed. Subsequentl y, UE al l owed respondents extensi on for
two more semesters however the l atter fai l ed to obl i ge. Bueno l ater demanded UE to consi der her as regul ar
empl oyee based on 6 ½ year of ful l l oad servi ce. LA hel d that both Bueno and Pepani o were regul ar empl oyees.
Issue: Whether or not UE i l l egal l y di smi ssed Bueno and Pepani o.
Ruling:
The pol i cy requi ri ng postgraduate degrees of col l ege teachers was provi ded i n the Manual of Regul ati ons, i n whi ch
the UE recogni zed. As the Court hel d i n Esparpi zo v Uni v of Bagui o, a school CBA must be read i n conjuncti on wi th
statutory and admi ni strati ve regul ati ons governi ng facul ty qual ifications. Such regul ati ons form part of a val i d CBA
wi thout need for the parti es to make express reference to i t. Whi l e the contracti ng parti es may establ i sh such
sti pul ati ons, cl auses, terms and condi ti ons, as they may see fi t, the ri ght to contract i s sti l l subject to the l i mi tati on
that the agreement must not be contrary to l aw or publ i c pol i cy.
The requi rement of a masteral degree for terti ary educati on teachers i s not unreasonabl e. The operati on of
educati onal i nsti tuti on i nvol ves publ i c i nterest. Herei n, UE gave respondents more than ampl e opportuni ti es to
acqui re the postgraduate degree requi red of them. But they do not take advantage of such opportuni ti es. Justi ce,
fai rness and due process demand that an empl oyer shoul d not be penal i zed for si tuati ons where i t had l i ttl e or no
parti ci pati on or control .

57. ULP of Employer/Interference
Insular Life Assurance Employees Asso. v. Insular Life, G.R. No. L-2529, January 30, 1971

FACTS:
The Insul ar Li fe Assurance Co., Ltd., Empl oyees Associ ati on-NATU, FGU Insurance Group Workers & Empl oyees
Associ ati on-NATU, and Insul ar Li fe Bui l di ng Empl oyees Associ ati on-NATU (herei nafter referred to as the Unions),
whi l e sti l l members of the Federati on of Free Workers (FFW), entered i nto separate col l ecti ve bargai ni ng
agreements wi th the Insul ar Li fe Assurance Co., Ltd. and the FGU
Insurance Group (herei nafter referred to as the Companies).

The Uni ons joi ntl y submi tted proposal s to the Compani es, modi fyi ng thei r respecti ve CBA but after months of
negoti ati on, the Compani es refused to submi t thei r respecti ve counter -proposal s, whi ch prompted the former to
send noti ce of stri ke for deadl ock on col l ecti ve bargai ni ng to the DOLE. Even after the noti ce bei ng gi ven, the
Uni on tri ed to negoti ate wi th the Company whi ch became futi l e and 4 months after fi l i ng the noti ce to stri ke, the
Uni ons deci ded to pursue i t. A few days before the day of stri ke, the Compani es promoted 87 uni oni st to
supervi sors wi th i ncrease i n sal ary nor change i n thei r respecti ve responsi bil i ti es. Duri ng the durati on of the stri ke,
the Compani es sent personal l etters to the stri ker, whi ch contai n the fol l owi ng: First letter promi sed benefi ts to
enti ce the stri kers to return to work; the second letter threatened the stri kers that the wi l l be repl aced i f they do
not return to work. Al so the members of the managements of the Compani es tri ed to penetrate the pi cket l i ne by
sendi ng 3 bus-l oads of empl oyees, i ncl udi ng a photographer, forci ng thei r way i nto the gate where the pi cket was
formed, thus causi ng i njuri es to the stri kers and to the stri ke-breakers due to the resi stance of the former. After
whi ch, the Compani es fi l ed cri mi nal cases agai nst the stri kers coupl ed wi th i njucti on, the l atter bei ng granted by
the court. Inci dental l y, al l of the more than 120 cri mi nal charges fi l ed agai nst the members of the Uni ons, except
three (3), were di smi ssed by the fi scal 's offi ce and by the courts. These three cases i nvol ved "sl i ght physi cal
i njuri es" agai nst one stri ker and "l i ght coerci on" agai nst two others.

The stri kers, due to the threat of bei ng repl aced and the i njuncti on i ssued by the court, deci ded to report back to
work. However, the Compani es requi red them to secure cl earances from the Prosecutor ’s Offi ce and be screened
by the management commi ttee headed by the Uni ons former offi cers, Garci a and Enage (they were hi red by the
Compani es as deputy corporate-secretary and assi stant to the head of the personnel department). The screeni ng
commi ttee i ni ti al l y rejected 83 stri kers wi th pendi ng cri mi nal charges and 34 offi ci al s of the Uni ons were
adamantl y refused to be readmi tted on the ground that they commi tted acts i ni mi cal to the i nterest of the
Compani es, thus were di smi ssed. However, al l non-stri kers wi th pendi ng cri mi nal charges whi ch arose from the
breakthrough i nci dent were readmi tted i mmedi atel y by the Compani es.

A compl ai nt for ULP was fi l ed agai nst the Compani es but the Court of Industri al Rel ati ons di smi ssed the same for
l ack of meri t.

ISSUE: Whether the Compani es commi tted ULP.

RULING: Yes, the Compani es commi tted ULP through the fol l owi ng:
1. In sendi ng out i ndi vi dual l y to the stri kers the l etters;
2. For di scri mi nati ng agai nst the stri ki ng members of the Uni ons i n the matter of readmi ssi on of empl oyees after
the stri ke;
3. For di smi ssi ng offi ci al s and members of the Uni ons wi thout gi vi ng them the benefi t of i nvesti gati on and the
opportuni ty to present thei r si de i n regard to acti vi ti es undertaken by them i n the l egi ti mate exerci se of thei r ri ght
to stri ke.

INTERFERENCE:
It i s an unfai r l abor practi ce for an empl oyer operati ng under a col l ecti ve bargai ni ng agreement to negoti ate or to
attempt to negoti ate wi th hi s empl oyees i ndi vi dual l y i n connecti on wi th changes i n the agreement. And the basi s
of the prohi bi ti on regardi ng i ndi vi dual bargai ni ng wi th the stri kers i s that al though the uni on i s on stri ke, the
empl oyer i s sti l l under obl i gati on to bargai n wi th the uni on as the empl oyees' bargai ni ng representati ve. The
ci rcumstance that the stri kers l ater deci ded to return to work ostensi bl y on account of the i njuncti ve wri t i ssued by
the Court of Fi rst Instance of Mani l a cannot al ter the i ntri nsi c qual i ty of the l etters, whi ch were cal cul ated, or
whi ch tended, to i nterfere wi th the empl oyees' ri ght to engage i n l awful concerted acti vi ty i n the form of a stri ke.
Interference consti tuti ng unfai r l abor practi ce wi l l not cease to be such si mpl y because i t was suscepti bl e of bei ng
thwarted or resi sted, or that i t di d not proxi matel y cause the resul t i ntended.

The test of whether an empl oyer has i nterfered wi th and coerced empl oyees i s whether the empl oyer has engaged
i n conduct whi ch i t may reasonabl y be sai d tends to i nterfere wi th the free exerci se of empl oyees' ri ghts and i t i s
not necessary that there be di rect evi dence that any empl oyee was i n fact i nti mi dated or coerced by statements of
threats of the empl oyer i f there i s a reasonabl e i nference that anti -uni on conduct of the empl oyer does have an
adverse effect on sel f-organi zati on and col l ecti ve bargai ni ng. Under the TOTALITY OF CONDUCT DOCTRINE, the
expressi ons of opi ni on by an empl oyer whi ch, though i nnocent i n themsel ves, frequentl y were hel d to be cul pabl e
because of the ci rcumstances under whi ch they were uttered, the hi story of the parti cul ar empl oyer's l abor
rel ati ons or anti -uni on bi as or because of thei r connecti on wi th an establ i shed col l ateral pl an of coerci on or
i nterference.


58. ULP of Employer/Interference
Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union v. Confesor, G.R. No. 114974, June 16, 2004

FACTS: Standard Chartered Bank (the Bank) i s a forei gn banki ng corporati on doi ng busi ness i n the Phi l i ppi nes. The
excl usi ve bargai ni ng agent of the rank and fi l e empl oyees of the Bank i s the Standard Chartered Bank Empl oyees
Uni on (the Union). Both parti es entered i nto a CBA that can be renogi ated after 3 years of i ts effecti vi ty. After the
3
rd
year, i n preparati on for renoti ati on, respecti ve proposal were submi tted and the Uni on requested that no
l awyer shoul d be part of the negoti ati ng panel and the Bank requested that Umal i , an offi cer of the federati on to
whi ch the Uni on was a member of, be excl uded from the panel as wel l . Except for the provi si ons on si gni ng bonus
and uni forms, the negoti ati ons became futi l e, both as to economi c and non-economi c provi si ons.

The Uni on fi l ed a noti ce to stri ke due to deadl ock before the NCMD and the Bank fi l ed a compl ai nt of ULP wi th
damages before the NLRC al l egi ng that the Uni on vi ol ated i ts duty to bargai n, as i t di d not bargai n i n good fai th. It
contended that the Uni on demanded “sky hi gh economi c demands,” i ndi cati ve of blue-sky bargaining.
[27]
Further,
the Uni on vi ol ated i ts no stri ke- no l ockout cl ause by fi l i ng a noti ce of stri ke before the NCMB. Consi deri ng that the
fi l i ng of noti ce of stri ke was an i l l egal act, the Uni on offi cers shoul d be di smi ssed. Fi nal ly, the Bank al l eged that as a
consequence of the i l l egal act, the Bank suffered nomi nal and actual damages and was forced to l i ti gate and hi re
the servi ces of the l awyer.

The Secretary of Labor (SOLE) assumed juri sdi cti on and consol i dati ng al l the cases rel ated to the i ssue. The SOLE
i ssued an order di smi ssi ng the ULP cases fi l ed by both parti es and di recti ng them to execute a CBA contai ni ng the
economi c and non-economi c provi si ons stated i n the order, whi l e al l the provi si ons i n the expi red CBA whi ch were
not modi fi ed nor di scussed are deemed retai ned.

ISSUE: Whether the Bank commi tted unfai r l abor practi ce when
1. It i nterfered wi th the Uni on’s choi ce of negoti ator;
2. There was surface bargai ni ng (vi ol ati on of the duty to bargai n col l ecti vel y when the Bank merel y went through
the moti ons of col l ecti ve bargai ni ng wi thout the i ntent to reach an agreement; and
3. Refusal to furni sh the Uni on wi th rel evant data.

RULING: There was no ULP, peti ti on was di smi ssed.

1. If an empl oyer i nterferes i n the sel ecti on of i ts negoti ators or coerces the Uni on to excl ude from i ts panel of
negoti ators a representati ve of the Uni on, and i f i t can be i nferred that the empl oyer adopted the sai d act to yi el d
adverse effects on the free exerci se to ri ght to sel f-organi zati on or on the ri ght to col l ecti ve bargai ni ng of the
empl oyees, ULP under Arti cl e 248(a) i n connecti on wi th Arti cl e 243 of the Labor Code i s commi tted. In order to
show that the empl oyer commi tted ULP under the Labor Code, substanti al evi dence i s requi red to support the
cl ai m. Substanti al evi dence has been defi ned as such rel evant evi dence as a reasonabl e mi nd mi ght accept as
adequate to support a concl usi on.
[48]
In the case at bar, the Uni on bases i ts cl ai m of i nterference on the al l eged
suggesti ons of Di okno to excl ude Umal i from the Uni on’s negoti ati ng panel . The ci rcumstances that occurred
duri ng the negoti ati on do not show that the suggesti on made by Di okno (from the Bank) to Di vi nagraci a(from the
Uni on) i s an anti -uni on conduct from whi ch i t can be i nferred that the Bank consci ousl y adopted such act to yi el d
adverse effects on the free exerci se of the ri ght to sel f-organi zati on and col l ecti ve bargai ni ng of the empl oyees,
especi al l y consi deri ng that such was undertaken previ ous to the commencement of the negoti ati on and
si mul taneousl y wi th Di vi nagraci a’s suggesti on that the bank l awyers be excl uded from i ts negoti ati ng panel .
Moreover, even wi th the request to excl ude Umal i from the negoti ati ng panel , the negoti ati on pus hed through.

2. Surface bargai ni ng i s defi ned as “goi ng through the moti ons of negoti ati ng” wi thout any l egal i ntent to reach an
agreement.

The evei dence deduced i n thi s case does not substanti ate the al l egati on that the Bank was surface
bargai ni ng. The Bank repl i ed wi th counter-proposal s. Admi ttedl y, the parti es were not abl e to agree and reached a
deadl ock. However, i t i s herei n emphasi zed that the duty to bargai n “does not compel ei ther party to agree to a
proposal or requi re the maki ng of a concessi on.”

3. The request for the rel evant data was not put i nto wri ti ng, when the Labor Code requi res sendi ng a wri tten
request for the i ssuance of a copy of the data about the Bank’s rank and fi l e empl oyees.


59. ULP of Employer/Interference
T&H Shopfitters v. T&H ShopfittersCorp.Gin Queen Workers Union, G.R. No. 191714, February 26, 2014

FACTS: The offi cers and/or members of THS-GQ uni on (respondents), fi l ed thei r Compl ai nt
7
for Unfai r Labor
Practi ce (ULP) by way of uni on busti ng, and Il l egal Lockout, wi th moral and exempl ary damages and attorney’s
fees, agai nst T&H Shopfi tters Corporati on (T&H Shopfi tters) and Gi n Queen Corporati on (GQ) (col l ecti vel y referred
to as "petitioners"), before the Labor Arbi ter.
In thei r desi re to i mprove thei r worki ng condi ti ons, respondents and other empl oyees of peti ti oners had a meeti ng
to di scuss the formati on of a uni on. The fol l owi ng day, seventeen (17) empl oyees were barred from enteri ng
peti ti oners’ factory premi ses l ocated i n Casti l l ejos, Zambal es, and ordered to transfer to T&H Shopfi tters’
warehouse at Subi c Bay Freeport Zone (SBFZ) purportedl y because of i ts expansi on. Afterwards, the sai d seventeen
(17) empl oyees were repeatedl y ordered to go on forced l eave due to the unavai l abi l i ty of work. After whi ch, the
they contended that the affected empl oyees were not gi ven regul ar work assi gnments, whi l e subcontractors were
conti nuousl y hi red to perform thei r functi ons. Meanwhi l e, the GQ was rel ocated to a “tal ahi ban,” and the uni on
offi cers were made to work as grass cutters. Due to these ci rcumstances, the empl oyees di d not report to work
whi ch eventual l y l ed to i ssuance of a show-cause l etter for termi nati on because of i nsubordi nati on by GQ.
Eventual l y, the Uni on was regi stered and an el ecti on was schedul ed. Before the el ecti on, the Peti ti oners
conducted a fi el d tri p wherei n the members of the uni on were purportedl y excl uded because the peti ti oners’
offi cers campai gned agai nst the uni on. The efforts of the peti ti oners pai d off because after the el ecti on, “no
uni on” prevai l ed. Respondents averred that the fol l owi ng week after the certi fi cati on el ecti ons were hel d,
peti ti oners retrenched THG-GQ Uni on offi cers and members assi gned at the Zambal es pl ant. Respondents cl ai med
that the work weeks of those empl oyees i n the SBFZ pl ant were drasti cal l y reduced to onl y three (3) days i n a
month.
The LA di smi ssed the compl ai nt for ULP and al l thei r money cl ai m for l ack of meri t. But on appeal to NLRC, the
deci si on was reversed; CA sustai nce NLRC’s deci si on.
ISSUE: Whether ULP acts were commi tted by peti ti oners agai nst respondents.
RULING: Yes, deci si on of NLRC and CA affi rmed.
ULP rel ates to the commi ssi on of acts that transgress the workers’ ri ght to organi ze. As speci fi ed i n Arti cl es 248
[now Arti cl e 257] and 249 [now Arti cl e 258] of the Labor Code, the prohi bi ted acts must necessari l y rel ate to the
workers' ri ght to sel f-organi zati on. The concept of ULP i s embodi ed i n Arti cl e 256 (formerl y Arti cl e 247) of the
Labor Code.
The questi oned acts of peti ti oners, namel y: 1) sponsori ng a fi el d tri p to Zambal es for i ts empl oyees, to the
excl usi on of uni on members, before the schedul ed certi fi cati on el ecti on; 2) the acti ve campai gn by the sal es offi cer
of peti ti oners agai nst the uni on prevai l i ng as a bargai ni ng agent duri ng the fi el d tri p; 3) escorti ng i ts empl oyees
after the fi el d tri p to the pol l i ng center; 4) the conti nuous hi ri ng of subcontractors performi ng respondents’
functi ons; 5) assi gni ng uni on members to the Cabangan si te to work as grass cutters; and 6) the enforcement of
work on a rotati onal basi s for uni on members, all reek of interference on the part of petitioners.

60. No joining/withdrawal from Union (Yellow Dog Contract)
Cathay Pacific Steel v. CA, G.R. No. 164561, August 30, 2006

FACTS: Peti ti oner i s Cathay Paci fi c Steel Corporati on (CAPASCO), a domesti c corporati on engaged i n the busi ness of
manufacturi ng steel products; whi l e the pri vate respondent i s Enri que Tamondong III, the Personnel
Superi ntendent of CAPASCO (whi ch was consi dered by CAPASCO as a manageri al ) who was previ ousl y assi gned at
the peti ti oners' Cai nta Pl ant, and CAPASCO Uni on of Supervi sory Empl oyees (CUSE), a dul y regi stered uni on of
CAPASCO. The supervi sory personnel of CAPASCO l aunched a move to organi ze a uni on among thei r ranks, l ater
known as pri vate respondent CUSE. Pri vate respondent Tamondong acti vel y i nvol ved hi msel f i n the formati on of
the uni on and was even el ected as one of i ts offi cers after i ts creati on. Consequentl y, peti ti oner CAPASCO sent a
memo to pri vate respondent Tamondong requi ri ng hi m to expl ai n and to di sconti nue from hi s uni on acti vi ti es,
wi th a warni ng that a conti nuance thereof shal l adversel y affect hi s empl oyment i n the company, whi ch was
i gnored by the l atter. CAPASCO termi nated the empl oyment of pri vate respondent Tamondong on the ground of
l oss of trust and confi dence, ci ti ng hi s uni on acti vi ti es as acts consti tuti ng seri ous di sl oyal ty to the company.
Tamondong chal l enged hi s di smi ssal for bei ng i l l egal and as an act i nvol vi ng unfai r l abor practi ce by fi l i ng a
Compl ai nt for Il l egal Di smi ssal and Unfai r Labor Practi ce before the NLRC.

LA rul ed i n favour of Tamondong; reversed by NLRC for l ack of meri t; vi a Peti ti on for Certi orari , CA affi rmed LA’s
deci si on and ordered the rei nstatement and payment of backwages and other benefi ts by CAPASCO to
Tamondong.

ISSUE: 1. Whether Pei ti on for Certi orari i s the proper remedy; and 2. Whether Tamondong i s a manageri al
empl oyee or supervi sory empl oyee, to accord hi m the ri ght to sel f-organi zati on

RULING: Peti ti on for Certi orari i s not the peti ti oner’s proper remedy and Tamandong i s a supervi sory empl oyee,
who cannot be prohi bi ted from joi ni ng and parti ci pati ng i n the uni on acti vi tes. Peti ti on di smi ssed.

1. The essenti al requi si tes for a Peti ti on for Certiorari under Rul e 65 are: (1) the wri t i s di rected agai nst a tri bunal, a
board, or an offi cer exerci si ng judi ci al or quasi -judi ci al functi on; (2) such tri bunal , board, or offi cer has acted
wi thout or i n excess of juri sdi cti on, or wi th grave abuse of di screti on amounti ng to l ack or excess of juri sdi cti on;
and (3) there i s no appeal or any pl ai n, speedy, and adequate remedy i n the ordi nary course of l aw. Thi rd requi si te
i s not present i n thi s case, the questi oned Deci si on of the Court of Appeal s was al ready a di spositi on on the meri ts;
thi s Court has no remai ni ng i ssues to resol ve, hence, the proper remedy avai l abl e to the peti ti oners i s to fi l e
Peti ti on for Revi ew under Rul e 45 not under Rul e 65. Moreover, where the i ssue or questi on i nvol ves or affects the
wi sdom or l egal soundness of the deci si on, and not the juri sdi cti on of the court to render sai d deci sion, the same is
beyond the provi nce of a peti ti on for certiorari.

2. Tamondong was i ndeed a supervi sory empl oyee and not a manageri al empl oyee, thus, el i gi bl e to joi n or
parti ci pate i n the uni on acti vi ti es of pri vate respondent CUSE. He di d not perform any of the functi ons of a
manageri al empl oyee as stated i n the defi ni ti on gi ven to i t by the Code. Hence, the Labor Code
[33]
provi si ons
regardi ng di squal ification of a manageri al empl oyee from joi ni ng, assisting or formi ng any l abor organi zati on does
not appl y to herei n pri vate respondent Tamondong. At the most, the record merel y showed that Ta mondong
i nformed and warned rank-and-fi l e empl oyees wi th respect to thei r vi ol ati ons of CAPASCO's rul es and regul ati ons.
Al so, the functi ons performed by pri vate respondent such as i ssuance of warni ng
]
to empl oyees wi th i rregul ar
attendance and unauthori zed l eave of absences and requi ri ng empl oyees to expl ai n regardi ng charges of
abandonment of work, are normal l y performed by a mere supervi sor, and not by a manager.


61. No joining/withdrawal from Union (Yellow Dog Contract)
Cainta Catholic School v. Cainta Catholic School Employees Union, G.R. No. 15102, May 4, 2006

FACTS: A CBA was entered i nto by the parti es. In 1993, the School reti red 2 of the Uni on offi cers, Ll agas and Javi er,
who had rendered more than twenty (20) years of conti nuous servi ce, pursuant to Secti on 2, Arti cl e X of the CBA,
to wi t:”An empl oyee may be reti red, ei ther upon appl i cati on by the empl oyee hi msel f or by the deci si on of the
Di rector of the School , upon reachi ng the age of si xty (60) or after havi ng rendered at l east twenty ( 20) years of
servi ce to the School the l ast three (3) years of whi ch must be conti nuous.” Because of thi s, the Uni on fi l ed a
noti ce of stri ke and 20 days after, the Uni on di d so and pi cketed at the School ’s entrances. The Secretary of Labor
(SOLE) i ssued a return to work order and certi fi ed the di spute for compul sory arbi trati on and status quo ante,
i ncl udi ng the suspensi on of the termi nati on of the 2 uni on offi cers. A month after, the School fi l ed a peti ti on
before the NLRC to decl are the stri ke i l l egal whi l e the Uni on fi l ed a compl ai nt for ULP.

NLRC rul ed i n favour of the School passi ng on 3 i ssues [(1) whether the reti rement of Ll agas and Javi er i s l egal ; (2)
whether the School i s gui l ty of unfai r l abor practi ce; and (3) whether the stri ke i s l egal ]. Uni on fi l ed for Peti ti on for
Certi orari before the Court wi th TRO, from whi ch the l atter was granted. 10 regul ar teachers, who were decl ared
to have l ost thei r empl oyment status under the aforesai d NLRC Resol uti on reported back to work but the School
refused to accept them by reason of i ts pendi ng moti on for cl ari fi cati on. Thi s prompted the Uni on to fi l e a peti ti on
for contempt. Consol i dati ng al l cases i nvol ved, the CA took cogni zance and rul ed i n favour of the Uni on and i ts
offi cers but di smi ssi ng the peti ti on for contempt for l ack of meri t.

ISSUE: Whether a sti pul ati on i n a Col l ecti ve Bargai ni ng Agreement (CBA) that al l ows management to reti re an
empl oyee i n i ts empl oy for a predetermi ned l engthy peri od but who has not yet reached the mi ni mum compul sory
reti rement age provi ded i n the Labor Code val i d. (Thi s i ssue prompted the stri ke and di smi ssal of other empl oyees)

RULING: Val i d. CA’s deci si on reversed.

The termi nati on of empl oyment of Ll agas and Javi er i s val i d because such arose from a management prerogati ve
granted by the mutual l y-negoti ated CBA between the School and the Uni on. There i s no uni on-bustng i n the case
at bar because reti rement i s a di fferent speci es of termi nati on of empl oyment from di smi ssal for just or authori zed
causes under Arti cl es 282 and 283 of the Labor Code. In those two i nstances, i t i s i ndi spensabl e that the empl oyer
establ i sh the exi stence of just or authori zed causes for di smi ssal as spel l ed out i n the Labor Code. Reti rement, on
the other hand, i s the resul t of a bi l ateral act of the parti es, a vol untary agreement between the empl oyer and the
empl oyee whereby the l atter after reachi ng a certai n age agrees and/or consents to sever hi s empl oyment wi th
the former. The Code provi des for reti rement benefi ts i n the absence of a reti rement pl an or agreement for
reti rement benefi ts of empl oyees i n the establ i shment. And by vi rtue of thei r acceptance of the CBA, the Uni on
and i ts members are obl i ged to abi de by the commi tments and l i mi tati ons they had agreed to cede to
management. The questi oned reti rement provi si ons cannot be deemed as an i mposi ti on foi sted on the Uni on,
whi ch very wel l had the ri ght to have refused to agree to al l owi ng management to reti re reti re empl oyees wi th at
l east 20 years of servi ce. Hence, the exerci se by the empl oyer of a val i d and dul y establ i shed prerogati ve to reti re
an empl oyee does not consti tute unfai r l abor practi ce.

Another poi nt i s that accordi ng to the School ’s Facul ty Manual , the Dean of Student Affai rs exerci ses manageri al
functi ons, thereby cl assi fyi ng Ll agas as a manageri al empl oyee; whi l e the posi ti on of Subject Area Coordi nator
(javi er’s posi ti on) i s cl assi fi ed as a supervi sory empl oyment because Javi er made recommendati ons as to what
acti ons to take i n hi ri ng, termi nati on, di sci pl i nary acti ons, and management pol i ci es, among others. Havi ng
establ i shed that Ll agas i s a manageri al empl oyee, she i s proscri bed from joi ni ng a l abor uni on,
[38]
more so bei ng
el ected as uni on offi cer. In the case of Javi er, a supervi sory empl oyee, she may joi n a l abor uni on composed onl y of
supervi sory empl oyees.
[39]
Fi ndi ng both uni on offi cers to be empl oyees not bel ongi ng to the rank-and-fi l e, thei r
membershi p i n the Uni on has become questi onabl e, renderi ng the Uni on i nuti l e to represent thei r cause. Hence,
the stri ke conducted was i l l egal .


62. No joining/withdrawal from Union (Yellow Dog Contract)
Purefoods v. NagkakaisangSamahangManggagawa ng Purefoods, G.R. No. 150896, August 28, 2008

FACTS: The respondents i n thi s case are 3 l abor organi zati ons and a federati on (PULO), NAGSAMA-Purefoods i s the
excl usi ve bargai ni ng agent of the rank-and-fi l e workers of Purefoods' meat di vi si on throughout Luzon, STFWU for
those i n the farm i n Sto. Tomas, Batangas, and PGFWU for those i n the poul try farm i n Sta. Rosa, Laguna.

Together wi th i ts demands and proposal , the organi zati ons submi tted to the company thei r respecti ve General
Membershi p Resol uti on approvi ng and supporti ng the uni on's affi l i ati on wi th PULO, adopti ng the draft CBA
proposal s of the federati on, and authori zi ng a negoti ati ng panel whi ch i ncl uded among others a PULO
representati ve. Whi l e Purefoods formal l y acknowl edged recei pt of the uni on's proposal s, i t refused to recogni ze
PULO and i ts parti ci pati on, even as a mere observer, i n the negoti ati on. Consequentl y, notwi ths tandi ng the PULO
representati ve's non-i nvol vement, the negoti ati ons of the terms of the CBA sti l l resul ted i n a deadl ock.

A noti ce of stri ke was then fi l ed by NAGSAMA-Purefoods on May 15, 1995. In the subsequent conci l i ati on
conference, the deadl ock i ssues were settl ed except the matter of the company's recogni ti on of the uni on's
affi l i ati on wi th PULO. On the other hand, the regul ar rank-and-fi l e workers i n the Sto. Tomas farm were refused
entry i n the company premi ses and 22 STFWU members were termi nated from empl oyment after transferri ng the
chi ckens from Sto.Tomas to Mal var, Batangas. The farm manager, supervi sors and el ectri cal workers of the Sto.
Tomas farm, who were members of another uni on, were neverthel ess retai ned by the company i n i ts empl oy.

Aggri eved, the l abor organi zati ons fi led a compl ai nt for ULP, i l l egal l ock-out and di smi ssal , and damages before the
NLRC. The LA rul ed i n favour of the Company, whi ch was reversed by NLRC expl ai ni ng that the peti ti oner
company's refusal to recogni ze the l abor organi zati ons' affi l i ati on wi th PULO was unjusti fi ed consi deri ng that the
l atter had been granted the status of a federati on by the Bureau of Labor Rel ati ons; and that thi s refusal
consti tuted undue i nterference i n, and restrai nt on the exerci se of the empl oyees' ri ght to sel f-organi zati on and
free col l ecti ve bargai ni ng. The Company fi l ed a Peti ti on for Certi orari before the CA, whi ch the appel l ate court
di smi ssed outri ght the company's peti ti on for certiorari on the ground that the veri fi cati on and certi fi cati on of
non-forum shoppi ng was defecti ve si nce no proof of authori ty to act for and on behal f of the corporati on was
submi tted by the corporati on's seni or vi ce-presi dent who si gned the same.

ISSUE: Whether the Company commi tted ULP and i l l egal l y di smi ssed the uni on members.

RULING: Yes, di smi ssal by CA affi rmed and rul i ng i n favour of the Uni ons by the NLRC affi rmed.

The cl osure of the Sto. Tomas farm was made i n bad fai th. Badges of bad fai th are evi dent from the fol l owi ng acts
of the peti ti oner: i t unjusti fi abl y refused to recogni ze the STFWU's and the other uni ons' affi l i ati on wi th PULO; i t
concl uded a new CBA wi th another uni on i n another farm duri ng the agreed i ndefi ni te suspensi on of the col l ecti ve
bargai ni ng negoti ati ons; i t surrepti ti ousl y transferred and conti nued i ts busi ness i n a l ess hosti l e envi ronment; and
i t suddenl y termi nated the STFWU members, but retai ned and brought the non-members to the Mal var farm.
Peti ti oner presented no evi dence to support the contenti on that i t was i ncurr i ng l osses or that the subject farm's
l ease agreement was pre-termi nated.

The sudden termi nati on of the STFWU members i s tai nted wi th ULP because i t was done to i nterfere wi th, restrai n
or coerce empl oyees i n the exerci se of thei r ri ght to sel f-organi zati on.


63. ULP/Contracting Out
Shell Oil Workers Union v. Shell Oil Company, G.R. No. L-28607, May 31, 1971

FACTS: The Shel l Company of the Phi l i ppi nes deci ded to di ssol ve i ts securi ty guard secti on, stati oned at i ts
Pandacan Instal l ati on and consequesntl y hi red a pri vate securi ty agency to undertake the work of the sai d
securi tyguards, notwi thstandi ng i ts bei ng embraced i n, and i ts conti nuance as such thus assured by an exi sti ng
col l ecti ve bargai ning contract, resul ted i n a stri ke cal l ed by peti ti oner Shel l Oi l Workers' Uni on, whi ch was certi fi ed
a month l ater by the Court of Industri al Rel ati ons.

The Uni on al l eged that the ei ghteen (18) securi ty guards affected are part of the bargai ni ng uni t and covered by
the exi sti ng col l ecti ve bargai ni ng contract, and as such, thei r transfers and eventual di smi ssal s are i l l egal bei ng
done i n vi ol ati on of the exi sti ng contract. On the other hand, the Company mai ntai ned that i n contracti ng out the
securi ty servi ce and redepl oyi ng the 18 securi ty guards affected, i t was merel y performi ng i ts l egi ti mate
prerogati ve to adopt the most effi ci ent and economi cal method of operati on; that sai d guards were transferred to
other secti ons wi th i ncrease, except for four (4) guards, i n rates of pay and wi th transfer bonus; the sai d acti on was
moti vated by busi ness consideration i n l i ne wi th past establ i shed practice and made after noti ce to and di scussi on
wi th the Uni on; that the 18 guards concerned were di smi ss for wi l ful l y refusi ng to obey the transfer order; and
that the stri ke staged by the Uni on on May 25, 1967 i s i l l egal .

The Court of Industri al Rel ati ons decl ared that no unfai r l abor practi ce was commi tted by Shel l Company i n
di ssol vi ng i ts securi ty guards from an outsi de agency, as such a step was wel l wi thi n management prerogati ve.
Hence for i t, the stri ke was i l l egal , there bei ng no compl i ance wi th the statutory requi si tes before an economi c
stri ke coul d be staged.

ISSUES: (1) whether or not the Company commi ts unfai r l abor practi ce i n contracti ng out i ts securi ty servi ce to a n
i ndependent professi onal securi ty agency and assi gni ng the 18 guards to other secti ons of the Company; and (2)
whether or not the stri ke cal l ed by the Uni on i s l egal .

RULING: Yes, the Company commi tted ULP when i t vi ol ated the CBA, thus, the stri ke cal l ed by the Uni on i s l egal .

Whi l e i t i s true that contracti ng –out of servi ces i s a management prerogati ve, when the same i s subjected to
provi si ons of CBA, the l atter shoul d govern. Havi ng sai d that the Company had conducted studi es on how to save
costs i s securi ty servi ces are contracted out, i t shoul d have not agreed on the sti pul ati on n the CBA respecti ng the
benefi ts and pri vi leges of i ts securi ty guards (evi denced by appendi ces i n the CBA). The Shel l Company, i n fai l i ng to
mani fest feal ty to what was sti pul ated i n an exi sti ng col l ecti ve bargai ni ng contract, was thus gui l ty of an unfai r
l abor practi ce.

The stri ke cannot be decl ared i l l egal , there bei ng a vi ol ati on of the col l ecti ve bargai ni ng agreement by Shel l
Company. Even i f i t were otherwi se, however, thi s Court cannot l end sancti on of i ts approval to the outri ght
di smi ssal of al l uni on offi cers, a move that certai nl y woul d have the effect of consi derabl y weakeni ng a l abor
organi zati on, and thus i n effect frustrate the pol i cy of the Industri al Peace Act to encourage uni oni zati on.
However, that the seri ous acts of vi ol ence occurri ng i n the course of the stri ke coul d be made the basi s for hol di ng
responsi bl e a l eader or a member of the Uni on gui l ty of thei r commi ssi on, what was deci ded by respondent Court
shoul d not be di sturbed.


Case # 71
Standard Chartered v. Confesor, G.R. No. 114974, June 16, 2004
(ULP-Bl ue sky bargai ni ng)
Facts:
Standard Chartered Bank (the Bank) i s a forei gn banki ng corporati on doi ng busi ness i n the Phi l i ppi nes. The
excl usi ve bargai ni ng agent of the rank and fi l e empl oyees of the Bank i s the Standard Chartered Bank Empl oyees
Uni on (the Uni on).
Wi thi n the freedom peri od of the 5-year CBA si gned by the Bank and the Uni on, the l atter, through i ts Presi dent
Mr. Di vi nagracia, sent a l etter contai ni ng i ts proposal coveri ng pol i ti cal provi si ons and (34) economi c provi si ons.
The Bank, through i ts Manager, Mr. Harri s, attached i ts counter -proposal to the non-economi c provi si ons
proposed by the Uni on. Duri ng the negoti ati on, there were provi si ons on whi ch the Uni on and the Bank coul d not
agree, hence, the notati on “DEFERRED/DEADLOCKED” was pl aced therei n. Despi te the Uni on’s proposal and the
necessary revi si ons on the counter-proposal of the Bank, both fai l ed to agree on the remai ni ng economi c
provi si ons of the CBA. The Uni on decl ared deadl ock and fi l ed Noti ce of Stri ke before NCMB and the Bank fi l ed a
compl ai nt for ULP and damages before Arbi trati on Branch of the NLRC agai nst the Uni on. The Bank al l eged that
the Uni on vi ol ated i ts duty to bargai n as i t di d not bargai n i n good fai th and i t demanded “sky hi gh economi c
demand,” i ndi cati ve of blue-sky bargaining.
Then Sec. of Labor Ni eves Confesor, after the parti es submi tted thei r respecti ve posi ti on papers, i ssued an Order
orderi ng the Bank and the Uni on to execute a CBA i ncorporati ng the di sposi ti ons contai ned therei n effecti ve for
two years thereafter or unti l such ti me as a new CBA has superseded i t, new provi si ons whi ch are bei ng demanded
by ei ther party are deemed deni ed but wi thout prejudi ce to such agreements as the parti es may have arri ved i n
the meanti me. ULP charge by the Bank and the Uni on agai nst one another i s di smi ssed for l ack of meri t, hence,
thi s peti ti on for certi orari .

Issue: WON the Uni on engaged i n the Bl ue-Sky Bargai ni ng.

Hel d: We, l i kewi se, do not agree that the Uni on i s gui l ty of ULP for engagi ng i n bl ue-sky bargai ni ng or maki ng
exaggerated or unreasonabl e proposal s.
[59]
The Bank fai l ed to show that the economi c demands made by
the Uni on were exaggerated or unreasonabl e. The mi nutes of the meeti ng show that the Uni on based i ts
economi c proposal s on data of rank and fi l e empl oyees and the prevai l i ng economi c benefi ts recei ved by bank
empl oyees from other forei gn banks doi ng busi ness i n the Phi l i ppi nes and other branches of the Bank i n the Asi an
regi on.
In sum, we fi nd that the publ i c respondent di d not act wi th grave abuse of di screti on amounti ng to l ack or excess
of juri sdiction when i t i ssued the questi oned order and resol uti ons. Whi l e the approval of the CBA and the rel ease
of the si gni ng bonus di d not estop the Uni on from pursui ng i ts cl ai ms of ULP agai nst the Bank, we fi nd that the
l atter di d not engage i n ULP. We, l i kewi se, hol d that the Uni on i s not gui l ty of ULP. Peti ti on i s DISMISSED.


Case # 72
Octavio v. PLDT, G.R. No. 175492, February 27, 2013
(Gri evance Machi nery and Vol untary Arbi trati on- Juri sdi cti on)
Facts:
PLDT hi red Octavi o as Sal es System Anal yst I on a probati onary status i n 2000 and became member of
GabayngUnyonsaTelekomunikasyonsamgaSuperbisor (GUTS). Exi sti ng CBA then provi des that effecti ve 2001,
there’s an i ncrease of 12% of the basi c wage or P2,500.00 whi chever i s hi gher. He was regul ari zed i n 2001 and was
promoted to the posi ti on of Sal es Anal yst 2 i n 2002. PLDT and GUTS entered i nto another CBA whi ch provi ded for
the sal ary i ncreases of 8% of basi c wage or P2,000.00 whi chever i s hi gher for the fi rst year (2002).
Octavi o wrote the presi dent of GUTS, Mr. Fajardo, cl ai mi ng that he was not gi ven a sal ary i ncrease i n 2001 and
2002. Acti ng thereon, Mr. Fajardo wrote the PLDT HRD for the enti tl ement of the members to the across -the-
board sal ary i ncrease. Gri evance Commi ttee, however, fai l ed to reach an a greement and i n effect, deni ed
Octavi o’s demand for sal ary i ncrease. Aggri eved, Octavi o fi l ed before the Arbi trati on Branch of the NLRC a
compl ai nt for payment of sal ary i ncreases.
Labor Arbi ter di smi ssed the compl ai nt and uphel d the Commi ttee Resol uti on. On appeal , NLRC affi rmed the Labor
Arbi ter’s Deci si on fi ndi ng that Octavi o’s sal ary had been al ready been adjusted i n accordance wi th the provi si ons
of the CBA, further rul ed that i t has no juri sdi cti on as the same i nvol ved the i nterpretati on and i mpl ementati on of
the CBA. Accordi ng to i t, Octavi o shoul d have brought hi s cl ai m before proper body as provi ded i n the l atest CBA’s
provi si on on gri evance machi nery and procedure.

Issue: WON NLRC has juri sdi cti on over Octavi o’s cl ai m.

Hel d: No.Every Col l ecti ve Bargai ni ng Agreement (CBA) shal l provi de a gri evance machi nery to whi ch al l di sputes
ari si ng from i ts i mpl ementati on or i nterpretati on wi l l be subjected to compul sory negoti ati ons. Thi s essenti al
feature of a CBA provi des the parti es wi th a si mpl e, i nexpensi ve and expedi ent system of fi ndi ng reasonabl e and
acceptabl e sol uti ons to di sputes and hel ps i n the attai nment of a sound and stabl e i ndustri al peace.

In i ts Memorandum,
20
PLDT set forth the gri evance machi nery and procedure provi ded under Arti cl e X of the CBA
of 2002-2004, viz:
Step 3. If the grievance is not settled either because of deadlock or the failure of the committee to decide the
matter, the grievance shall be transferred to a Board of Arbitrators for the final decision.

Indi sputabl y, the present controversy i nvol ves the determi nati on of an empl oyee’s sal ary i ncreases as provi ded i n
the CBAs. When Octavi o’s cl ai m for sal ary i ncreases was referred to the Uni on-Management Gri evance Commi ttee,
the cl ear i ntenti on of the parti es was to resol ve thei r di fferences on the proper i nterpretati on and i mpl ementati on
of the perti nent provi si ons of the CBAs. And i n accordance wi th the procedure prescri bed therei n, the sai d
commi ttee made up of representati ves of both the uni on and the management convened. Unfortunatel y, i t fai l ed
to reach an agreement. Octavi o’s recourse pursuant to the CBA was to el evate hi s gri evance to the Board of
Arbi trators for fi nal deci si on. Instead, ni ne months l ater, Octavi o fi l ed a Compl ai nt before the NLRC.

It i s settl ed that "when parti es have val i dl y agreed on a procedure for resol vi ng gri evances and to submi t a di spute
to vol untary arbi trati on then that procedure shoul d be stri ctl y observed."
22
Moreover, we have hel d ti me and
agai n that "before a party i s al l owed to seek the i nterventi on of the court, i t i s a precondi ti on that he shoul d have
avai l ed of al l the means of admi ni strati ve processes afforded hi m. Hence, i f a remedy wi thi n the admi ni strati ve
machi nery can sti l l be resorted to by gi vi ng the admi ni strati ve offi cer concerned every opportuni ty to deci de on a
matter that comes wi thi n hi s juri sdi cti on, then such remedy shoul d be exhausted fi rst before the court’s judi ci al
power can be sought.


Case # 73
Goya Inc. v. Goya Employees’ Union, G.R. No. 170054, January 21, 2013
(Gri evance Machi nery and Vol untary Arbi trati on- Juri sdi cti on)
Facts: Peti ti oner Goya, Inc. (Company), a domesti c corporati on engaged i n the manufacture, i mportati on, and
whol esal e of top qual i ty food products, hi red contractual empl oyees from PESO Resources Devel opment
Corporati on (PESO) to perform temporary and occasi onal servi ces i n i ts factory. Thi s prompted respondent Goya,
Inc. Empl oyees Uni on–FFW (Uni on) to request for a gri evance conference on the ground that the contractual
workers do not bel ong to the categori es of empl oyees sti pul ated i n the exi sti ng CBA whi ch provi des - Probati onary,
Regul ar and Casual Empl oyees. When the matter remai ned unresol ved, the gri evance was referred to the NCMB
for vol untary arbi trati on.

Fai l ure to agree at ami cabl e settl ement, both submi tted for resol uti on before the Vol untary Arbi trator (VA)
Bi enveni do E. Laguesmathe sol i tary i ssue of "WON Company i s gui l ty of unfai r l abor acts i n engagi ng the servi ces of
PESO, a thi rd party servi ce provi der, under the exi sti ng CBA, l aws, and juri sprudence."

The Uni on asserted that the hi ri ng of contractual empl oyees from PESO i s not a management prerogati ve and i n
gross vi ol ati on of the CBA tantamount to unfai r l abor practi ce (ULP). It noted that the contractual workers engaged
have been assi gned to work i n posi ti ons previ ousl y handl ed by regul ar workers and Uni on members, i n effect
vi ol ati ng CBA wi th respect to categori es of empl oyees.

Wi th the hi ri ng of contractual empl oyees, the Uni on contended that i t woul d no l onger have probati onary and
casual empl oyees from whi ch i t coul d obtai n addi ti onal Uni on members; thus, renderi ng i nuti l e Secti on 1, Arti cl e III
(Uni on Securi ty) of the CBA.

In counteri ng the Uni on’s al l egati ons, the Company argued that: (a) the l aw expressl y al l ows contracti ng and
subcontracti ng arrangements through DOLE Order No. 18-02; (b) the engagement of contractual empl oyees di d
not, i n any way, prejudi ce the Uni on, si nce not a si ngl e empl oyee was termi nated and nei ther di d i t resul t i n a
reducti on of worki ng hours nor a reducti on or spl i tti ng of the bargai ni ng uni t; and (c) Secti on 4, Arti cl e I of the CBA
merel y provi des for the defi ni ti on of the categori es of empl oyees and does not put a l i mi tati on on the Company’s
ri ght to engage the servi ces of job contractors or i ts management prerogati ve to address temporary/occasi onal
needs i n i ts operati on.

VA Laguesma di smi ssed the Uni on’s charge of ULP for bei ng purel y specul ati ve and for l acki ng i n factual basi s, but
the Company was di rected to observe and compl y wi th i ts commi tment under the CBA.
Whi l e the Uni on moved for parti al reconsideration of the VA Deci si on,the Company i mmedi atel y fi l ed a peti ti on for
revi ewbefore the Court of Appeal s (CA) to set asi de the di recti ve to observe and compl y wi th the CBA commi tment
pertai ni ng to the hi ri ng of casual empl oyees when necessi tated by busi ness ci rcumstances, professi ng that such
order was not covered by the sol e i ssue submi tted for vol untary arbi trati on. CA di smi ssed, hence, thi s peti ti on.

Issue: WON the Vol untary Arbi trator had juri sdi cti on to rul e on the “engagement of PESO, a thi rd party servi ce
provi der, under exi sti ng CBA, l aws and juri sprudence.

Hel d: Yes.We confi rm that the VA rul ed on a matter that i s covered by the sol e i ssue submi tted for vol untary
arbi trati on. Resul tantl y, the CA di d not commi t seri ous error when i t sustai ned the rul i ng that the hi ri ng of
contractual empl oyees from PESO was not i n keepi ng wi th the i ntent and spi ri t of the CBA. Indeed, the opi ni on of
the VA i s germane to, or, i n the words of the CA, "i nterrel ated and i nter twi ned wi th," the sol e i ssue submi tted for
resol uti on by the parti es. Thi s bei ng sai d, the Company’s i nvocati on of Secti ons 4 and 5, Rul e IVand Secti on 5, Rul e
VIof the Revi sed Procedural Gui del i nes i n the Conduct of Vol untary Arbi trati on Proceedi ngs dated October 15,
2004 i ssued by the NCMB i s pl ai nl y out of order. Peti ti on i s DENIED.


Case # 74
Ace Navigation Co., Inc. v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 197309, October 10, 2012
(Gri evance Machi nery and Vol untary Arbi trati on- Procedure)
Facts: In 2008, seaman Teodori co Fernandez (Fernandez), assi sted by hi s wi fe, Gl eni ta Fernandez, fi l ed wi th the
NLRC a compl ai nt for di sabi l i ty benefi tsagai nst Ace Navi gati on Co., Inc., Vel a Internati onal Mari ne Ltd., and/or
Rodol fo Pami ntuan (peti ti oners).The peti ti oners moved to di smi ss the compl ai nt contendi ng that the l abor arbi ter
had no juri sdi cti on over thedi spute. They argued that excl usi ve ori gi nal jurisdi cti on i s wi th the vol untary arbi trator
or panel of vol untary arbi trators,pursuant to Secti on 29 of the POEA Standard Empl oyment Contract (POEA-SEC ),
si nce the parti es are covered by the AMOSUP-TCC or AMOSUP-VELA (as l ater ci ted by the peti ti oners) col l ecti ve
bargai ni ng agreement (CBA). Under Secti on 14 of the CBA, adi spute between a seafarer and the company shal l be
settl ed through the gri evance machi nery and mandatory vol untaryarbi trati on.Fernandez opposed the moti on. He
argued that i nasmuch as hi s compl aint i nvol ves a money cl ai m, ori gi nal andexcl usi ve juri sdi cti on over the case i s
vested wi th the l abor arbi ter.
Labor Arbi ter Ri ofl ori do deni ed the moti on to di smi ss, hol di ng that under Secti on 10 of RA No.8042, the Mi grant
Workers and Overseas Fi l i pi nos Act of 1995, the l abor arbi ter has ori gi nal and excl usi ve juri sdi cti on overmoney
cl ai ms ari si ng out of an empl oyer-empl oyee rel ati onshi p or by vi rtue of any l aw or contract, notwi thstandi ng
anyprovi si on of l aw to the contrary. The peti ti oners appeal ed to the NLRC, but the l abor agency deni ed the appeal .
Accordi ngl y, i t remanded the case to the l abor arbi ter for further proceedi ngs. The peti ti oners moved for
reconsi derati on, but the NLRCdeni ed the moti on, prompti ng the peti ti oners to el evate the case to the CA through
a peti ti on for certi orari under Rul e 65 of the Rul es of Court.
CA deni ed the peti ti on on procedural and subs tanti ve grounds. The CA cl ari fi ed that whi l e the l aw al l ows parti es
tosubmi t to vol untary arbi trati on other l abor di sputes, i ncl udi ng matters fal l i ng wi thi n the ori gi nal and excl usi ve
juri sdi cti on of the l abor arbi ters under Arti cl e 217 of the Labor Code a s thi s Court recogni zed i n Vi verov. CA, the
parti es’ submi ssion agreement must be expressed i n unequi vocal l anguage. It found no such unequi vocal l anguage
i n theAMOSUP/TCC CBA that the parti es agreed to submi t money cl ai ms or, more speci fi cal l y, cl ai ms for di sabi l i ty
benefi ts tovol untary arbi trati on.Taki ng note of Secti on 29 of the POEA-SEC, the CA expl ai ned that the rel evant
POEA-SEC provi si ons shoul d l i kewi sebe qual i fi ed by the rul i ng i n the Vi vero case, the Labor Code, and other
appl i cable l aws and jurisprudence.In sum, the CA stressed that the juri sdicti on of vol untary arbi trators i s l i mi ted to
the seafarers’ cl aims whi ch do not fal l wi thi n the l abor arbi ter’s ori gi nal and excl usi ve juri sdi cti on or even i n cases
where the l abor arbi ter has juri sdi cti on, the parti es have agreed i n unmi stakabl e terms (through thei r CBA) to
submi t the case to vol untary arbi trati on.The peti ti oners moved for reconsi derati on of the CA deci si on, but the
appel l ate court deni ed the moti on.

ISSUE:
Who has the ori gi nal and excl usive juri sdiction over Fernandez’s di sabi l i ty cl ai m —the l abor arbi ter under Secti on
10 of R.A. No. 8042, as amended, or the vol untary arbi trati on mechani sm as prescri bed i n the parti es’ CBA and the
POEA
-SEC?

RULING:
We fi nd meri t i n the peti ti on. The State’s l abor rel ati ons pol icy l ai d down i n the Consti tuti on and fl eshed out i n the
enabl i ng statute, the Labor Code (Art. 260, 261 and 262) and the POEA-SEC provi de that the vol untary arbi trator or
panel of vol untary arbi trators has origi nal and excl usi ve jur i sdi cti on over Fernandez’s di sabi l i ty cl ai m. There i s no
di spute that thecl ai m arose out of Fernandez’s empl oyment wi th the peti ti oners and that thei r rel ati onshi p i s
covered by a CBA —AMOSUP/TCC or the AMOSUP-VELA CBA. The CBA provi des for a gri evance procedure for the
resol uti on of gri evances ordi sputes whi ch occur duri ng the empl oyment rel ati onshi p and, l i ke the gri evance
machi nery created under Arti cl e 261 of theLabor Code, i t i s a two-ti ered mechani sm, wi th vol untary arbi trati on as
the l ast step.
Contrary to the CA’s readi ng of the CBA’s Arti cl e 14, there i s unequi vocal or unmi stakabl e l anguage i n the
agreement whi ch mandatori l y requi res the parti es to submi t to the gri evance procedure any di spute or cause of
acti on they may haveagai nst each other.What mi ght have caused the CA to mi ss the cl ear i ntent of the parti es i n
prescri bi ng a gri evance procedure i n thei r CBA i s, as the peti ti oners’ have i nti mated, the use of the auxi l i ary verb
"may" i n Arti cl e 14.7(a) of the CBA whi ch provi desthat "i f by reason of the nature of the Di spute, the parti es are
unabl e to ami cabl y settl e the di spute, ei ther party mayrefer the case to a MANDATORY ARBITRATION
COMMITTEE." Whi l e the CA di d not qual i fy i ts readi ng of the subject provi si on of the CBA, i t i s reasonabl e to
concl ude that i t vi ewedas opti onal the referral of a di spute to the mandatory arbi trati on commi ttee when the
parti es are unabl e to ami cabl y settl e thedi spute.We fi nd thi s a strai ned i nterpretati on of the CBA provi si on. The CA
read the provi si on separatel y, or i n i sol ati on of theother secti ons of Arti cl e 14, especi al l y 14.7(h), whi ch, i n cl ear,
expl i ci t l anguage, states that the "referral of al l unresol veddi sputes from the Gri evance Resol uti on Commi ttee to
the Mandatory Arbi trati on Commi ttee shal l be unwai vabl epr erequi si te or condi ti on precedent for bri ngi ng any
acti on, cl ai m, or cause of acti on, l egal or otherwi se, before anycourt, tri bunal , or panel i n any juri sdicti on" and that
the fai l ure by a party or seaman to so refer the di spute to theprescri bed di spute resol uti on mechani sm shal l bar
any l egal or other acti on. Read i n i ts enti rety, the CBA’s Arti cl e 14 (Gri evance Procedure) unmi stakabl y refl ects the
parti es’ agreement tosubmi t any unresol ved di spute at the gri evance resol uti on stage to mandatory vol untary
arbi trati on under Arti cl e 14.7(h) of the CBA. And, i t shoul d be added that, i n compl i ance wi th Secti on 29 of the
POEA-SEC whi ch requi res that i n cases of cl ai ms and di sputes ari si ng from a seafarer’s empl oyment, the parti es
covered by a CBA shal l submi t the cl ai m or di spute to the ori gi nal and excl usi ve juri sdi cti on of the vol untary
arbi trator or panel of vol untary arbi trators.
Si nce the parti es used unequi vocal l anguage i n thei r CBA for the submi ssi on of thei r di sputes to
vol untaryarbi trati on, we fi nd that the CA commi tted a reversi bl e error i n i ts rul i ng. It bears stressi ng at thi s poi nt
that we areuphol di ng the juri sdiction of the vol untary arbi trator or panel of vol untary arbi trators over the present
di spute, not onl y because of the cl ear l anguage of the parti es’ CBA on the matter; more i mportantl y, we so uphol d
the vol untaryarbi trator’s juri sdi cti on, i n recogni ti on of the State’s express preference for vol untary modes of
di spute settl ement,such as conci l iati on and vol untary arbi trati on as expressed i n the Consti tuti on, the l aw and the
rul es.It i s settl ed that when the parti es have val i dl y agreed on a procedure for resol vi ng gri evances and to submi t
adi spute to vol untary arbi trati on then that procedure shoul d be stri ctl y observed.


Case # 75
Club Filipino v. Bautista, G.R. No. 168406, July 13, 2009
(Stri kes and Lockouts- Effect of a l egal v. i l l egal stri ke)
Facts: Peti ti oner Cl ub Fi l i pino, Inc. (the company) i s a non-stock, non profi t corporati on dul y formed, organi zed and
exi sti ng under Phi l i ppi ne l aws, wi th peti ti oner Atty. Roberto F. de Leon as i ts presi dent. Respondents Ronni e
Sual og, Joel Cal i da, Johnny Ari nto and Roberto de Guzman, on the other hand, were former offi cers and members
of the Cl ub Fi l i pi no Empl oyees Associ ati on (the uni on).

Pri or to the expi rati on of the CBA on May 31, 2000 and wi thi n the freedom peri od, the uni on made several
demands for negoti ati on but the company repl i ed that i t coul d not muster a quorum, thus no CBA negoti ati ons
coul d be hel d. Due to vari ous reasons proffered by the company, respondents, as offi cers of the uni on, fi l ed a
request for preventi ve medi ati on wi th the NCMB but thi s, however, fai l ed to bri ng the management to the
negoti ati ng tabl e. Both onl y met wi th a decl arati on of a deadl ock.

Apri l 2001, the uni on fi l ed a noti ce of stri ke wi th the NCMB on the grounds of bargai ni ng deadl ock and fai l ure to
bargai n. Company submi tted fi rst part of i ts economi c counter -proposal . Meanwhi l e, May 2001, the uni on
conducted a stri ke vote under the supervi si on of the DOLE.

In response to the company’s counter-proposal , the uni on sent the company i ts i mproved proposal , but the
company refused to i mprove on i ts offer. Thi s prompted the uni on to stage a stri ke on May 26, 2001 on the ground
of a CBA bargai ni ng deadl ock.

The company fi l ed before the NLRC a peti ti on to decl are the stri ke i l l egal . The company further prayed that al l
uni on offi cers who parti ci pated i n the i l l egal stri ke be consi dered separated from the servi ce.

The l abor arbi ter decl ared the stri ke "procedural l y [i nfi rm] and therefore i l l egal , the uni on fai l ed to attach i ts
wri tten CBA proposal and the company’s counter-proposal to the noti ce of stri ke and to provi de proof of a request
for a conference to settl e the di spute. On appeal , NLRC affi rmed the LA's deci si on.

CA, vi a peti ti on for certi orari , set asi de the rul i ngs hol di ng that the NLRC and the l abor arbi ter "took a sel ecti ve
vi ew of the attendant facts of the case" and i n "negati ng thereby the effects of the noti ce of stri ke the uni on fi l ed."
What was more, the NLRC’s reasoni ng was fl awed because "a worker ordered di smi ssed under a tri bunal ’s decision
has every ri ght to questi on hi s or her di smi ssal." The l abor arbi ter’s rul i ng was l ikewi se wrong because i t was based
on a "fl i msy techni cal i ty" that conveni entl y booted out the uni on offi cers from the company, hence, thi s peti ti on.

Issue: WON the stri ke staged by respondents on May 26, 2001 was l egal .

Hel d: Yes.Rul e XXII, Secti on 4 of the Omni bus Rul es Impl ementi ng the Labor Code states:
In cases of bargai ni ng deadl ocks, the noti ce shal l , as far as practicable, further state the unresol ved i ssues i n the
bargai ni ng negoti ati ons and be accompani ed by the wri tten proposal s of the uni on, the counter -proposal s of the
empl oyer and the proof of a request for conference to settl e di fferences. In cases of unfai r l abor practi ces, the
noti ce shal l , as far as practi cabl e, state the acts compl ai ned of, and efforts taken to resol ve the di spute ami cabl y.
Any noti ce whi ch does not conform wi th the requi rements of thi s and the foregoi ng secti on shal l be deemed as not
havi ng been fi l ed and the party concerned shal l be so i nformed by the regi onal branch of the Board.

In the i nstant case, the uni on cannot be faul ted for i ts omi ssi on. The uni on coul d not have attached the counter -
proposal of the company i n the noti ce of stri ke i t submi tted to the NCMB as there was no such counter -proposal .
To recal l , the uni on fi l ed a noti ce of stri ke on Apri l 6, 2001 after several requests to start negoti ati ons proved futi l e.
It was onl y on Apri l 22, 2001, or after two weeks, when the company formal l y responded to the uni on by
submi tti ng the fi rst part of i ts counter-proposal . Worse, i t took the company another three weeks to compl ete i t
by submi tti ng on May 11, 2001 the second part of i ts counter -proposal . Thi s was al most a year after the expi rati on
of the CBA sought to be renewed.

The Impl ementi ng Rul es use the words "as far as practicable." In thi s case, attachi ng the counter-proposal of the
company to the noti ce of stri ke of the uni on was not practi cabl e. It was absurd to expect the uni on to produce the
company’s counter-proposal whi ch i t di d not have.

Another error commi tted by the l abor arbi ter was hi s decl arati on that respondents, as uni on offi cers,
automati cal l y severed thei r empl oyment wi th the company due to the al l eged i l l egal stri ke. In the fi rst pl ace, there
was no i l l egal stri ke. Moreover, i t i s hornbook doctri ne that a mere fi ndi ng of the i l l egal i ty of the stri ke shoul d not
be automati cal l y fol l owed by the whol esal e di smi ssal of the stri ker s from empl oyment.

The l aw i s cl ear:
Any uni on offi cer who knowingly parti ci pates i n an i l l egal stri ke and any worker or uni on offi cer who knowi ngl y
parti ci pates i n the commi ssi on of i l l egal acts duri ng a stri ke may be decl ared to have l ost hi s empl oyment status.
Note that the verb "parti ci pates" i s preceded by the adverb "knowi ngl y." Thi s refl ects the i ntent of the l egi sl ature
to requi re "knowl edge" as a condi ti on sine qua non before a uni on offi cer can be di smi ssed from empl oyment for
parti ci pati ng i n an i l l egal stri ke.

WHEREFORE, the peti ti on i s hereby DENIED.


Case # 76
Visayas Community Medical Center v. Yballe, G.R. No. 196156, January 15,2014
(Stri kes and Lockouts- Effect of a l egal v. i l l egal stri ke)
Facts: Respondents were hi red as staff nurses and mi dwi ves by peti ti oner VCMC, formerl y Metro Cebu Communi ty
Hospi tal , Inc (MCCHI). The Nati onal Federati on of Labor (NFL) i s the excl usi ve bargai ni ng representati ve of the
rank-and-fi l e empl oyees of MCCHI. Perl a Nava, presi dent of Nagkahi usangMamumuosa MCCHI (NAMA-MCCHI-
NFL) wrote to MCCH Admi ni strator expressi ng the uni on's desi re to renew the CBA, however, MCCHI returned the
CBA proposal to secure fi rst the endorsement of NFL l egal counsel as the offi ci al bargai ni ng representati ve of
MCCHI empl oyees.
NFL Legal Counsel Atty. Al forque i nformed MCCHI that the proposed CBA was never referred to NFL and the l atter
has not authori zed any other l egal counsel or any person for col l ecti ve bargai ni ng negoti ati ons. In vi ew of the
exi sti ng confl i ct between federati on and i ts l ocal affi l i ate, check-off was temporari l y suspended by the MCCHI.
Atty. Al forque advi sed Nava that thei r group i s not recogni zed by NFL.
In 1996, upon the request of Atty. Al forque, MCCHI granted one-day uni on l eave wi th pay for 12 uni on members.
The next day, several uni on members l ed by Nava and her group l aunched a seri es of mass acti ons such as weari ng
bl ack and red armbands/headbands, marchi ng around the hospi tal premi ses and putti ng up pl acards, posters and
streamers. Atty. Al forque i mmedi atel y di sowned the concerted acti vi ti es bei ng carri ed out by uni on members.
DOLE Regi onal Offi ce i ssued certi fi cati ons stati ng that there i s nothi ng i n thei r records whi ch shows that NAMA-
MCCH- NFL i s a regi stered l abor organi zati on, and that sai d uni on submi tted onl y a copy of i ts Charter Certi fi cate.
MCCHI then sent i ndi vi dual noti ces to al l uni on members aski ng them to submi t wri tten expl anati on why they
shoul d not be termi nated for havi ng supported the i l l egal concerted acti vi ti es of NAMA-MCCH-NFL whi ch has no
l egal personal i ty as per DOLE records.
NCMB, upon fi l i ng of Noti ce to Stri ke by NAMA-MCCH-NFL, deni ed the same for want of l egal personal i ty. Despi te
such rebuff, Nava and her group sti l l conducted and approved a stri ke vote. More than 100 stri ki ng empl oyees
were di smi ssed for conti nued pi cketi ng acti vi ti es. Unfazed, the stri ki ng uni on members hel d more mass acti ons.
Wi th the vol ati l e si tuati on, MCCHI fi l ed a peti ti on for i njuncti on wi th the NLRC i n whi ch the same was granted wi th
permanent i njuncti on i ssued.
Due to several compl ai nts for i l l egal di smi ssal and ULP by the termi nated empl oyees, Executi ve Labor Arbi ter
ReynosoBel armi no rul ed that MCCHI and i ts admi ni strators were not gui l ty of ULP and l i kewi se uphel d the
termi nati on of compl ai nant uni on offi cers who conducted the i l l egal stri ke. But NAMA members, who cannot be
hel d responsi bl e for an i l l egal stri ke on the sol e basi s of such membershi p, are bei ng l i abl e onl y i f they actual l y
parti ci pated therei n.
Respondents and thei r co-compl ai nants fi l ed before NLRC thei r respecti ve appeal s. NLRC affi rmed the deci si on.
Thus, a peti ti on for certi orari was fi l ed before CA who l i kewi se di smi ssed the same.
The present peti ti on was i ncl uded i n the four consol i dated cases previ ousl y deci ded by thi s court. Respondents
cl ai m that they have consi stentl y mani fested thei r non-parti ci pati on i n the i l l egal stri ke and argue that there i s
absol utel y no reason to del ete the awards and separati on pay i n l i eu of rei nstatement. Peti ti oner, on the other
hand, contends that respondents have surrepti ti ousl y changed thei r posi ti on as facts on records establ i shed that
they si gned the col l ecti ve repl y of the uni on members and acknowl edged Nava as thei r uni on l eader.

Issue: WON respondents who were mere uni on members were i l l egal l y di smi ssed and i f so, enti tl ed to
rei nstatement and ful l backwages.

Hel d: Il l egal l y di smi ssed. The Supreme Court stressed that the l aw makes a di sti ncti on between uni on members
and uni on offi cers. A uni on member who merel y parti ci pates i n an i l l egal stri ke may not be termi nated from
empl oyment. It i s onl y when he commi ts i l l egal acts duri ng a stri ke that he may be decl ared to have l ost
empl oyment status. In contrast, a uni on offi cer may be termi nated from empl oyment for knowi ngl y parti ci pati ng
i n an i l l egal strike or parti ci pates i n the commi ssi on of i l l egal acts duri ng a stri ke. The l aw grants the empl oyer the
opti on of decl ari ng a uni on offi cer who parti ci pated i n an i l legal stri ke as havi ng l ost hi s empl oyment. It possesses
the ri ght and prerogati ve to termi nate the uni on offi cers from servi ce.
NAMA-MCCH-NFL i s not a l egi ti mate l abor organi zati on, thus, the stri ke staged by i ts l eaders and members was
decl ared i l l egal . The uni on l eaders who conducted the i l l egal stri ke despi te knowl edge that NAMA-MCCH-NFL i s
not a dul y regi stered l abor uni on were decl ared to have been val i dl y termi nated by peti ti oner. However, as to the
respondents who were mere uni on members, i t was not shown that they commi tted any i l l egal act duri ng the
stri ke. The Labor Arbi ter and the NLRC were one i n fi ndi ng that respondents acti vel y supported the concerted
protest acti vi ti es, signed the col l ecti ve repl y of uni on members mani festi ng that they l aunched the mass acti ons to
protest management’s refusal to negoti ate a new CBA, refused to appear i n the i nvesti gati ons schedul ed by
peti ti oner because i t was the uni on’s stand that they woul d onl y attend these i nvesti gati ons as a group, and fai l ed
to heed peti ti oner’s fi nal di recti ve for them to desi st from further taki ng part i n the i l l egal stri ke. The CA, on the
other hand, found that respondents’ parti ci pati on i n the stri ke was l i mi ted to the weari ng of armbands. Si nce an
ordi nary stri king worker cannot be di smi ssed for such mere parti ci pation i n the i l l egal stri ke, the CA correctl y rul ed
that respondents were i l l egal l y di smi ssed. However, the CA erred i n awardi ng respondents ful l back wages and
orderi ng thei r rei nstatement despi te the prevai l i ng ci rcumstances.
Are respondents then enti tl ed to back wages? Thi s Court, i n G & S Transport Corporati on v. Infante, rul ed i n the
negati ve:
The al ternati ve rel i ef for uni on members who were di smi ssed for havi ng parti ci pated i n an i l l egal stri ke i s the
payment of separati on pay i n l i eu of rei nstatement under the fol l owi ng ci rcumstances: (a) when rei nstatement can
no l onger be effected i n vi ew of the passage of a l ong peri od of ti me or because of the real i ti es of the si tuati on; (b)
rei nstatement i s i ni mi cal to the empl oyer’s i nterest; (c) rei nstatement i s no l onger feasi bl e; (d) rei nstatement does
not serve the best i nterests of the parti es i nvol ved; (e) the empl oyer i s prejudi ced by the workers’ conti nued
empl oyment; (f) facts that make executi on unjust or i nequi tabl e have supervened; or (g) strai ned rel ati ons
between the empl oyer and empl oyee.
In the Deci si on dated December 7, 2011, we hel d that the grant of separati on pay to compl ai nants i s the
appropri ate rel i ef under the ci rcumstances, thus:
Consi deri ng that 15 years had l apsed from the onset of thi s l abor di spute, and i n vi ew of strai ned rel a ti ons that
ensued, i n addi ti on to the real i ty of repl acements al ready hi red by the hospi tal whi ch had apparentl y recovered
from i ts huge l osses, and wi th many of the peti ti oners ei ther empl oyed el sewhere, al ready ol d and si ckl y, or
otherwi se i ncapaci tated, separati on pay wi thout back wages i s the appropri ate rel i ef. x xx
In fi ne, we sustai n the CA i n rul i ng that respondents who are mere uni on members were i l l egal l y di smi ssed for
parti ci pati ng i n the i l l egal stri ke conducted by the Nava group. However, we set asi de the order for thei r
rei nstatement and payment of ful l back wages.


Case # 77
Santa Rosa Coca Cola Plant Employees Union v. Coca-Cola Bottlers, G.R. Nos. 164302-03, January 24, 2007
(Stri kes and Lockouts-Pi cketi ng; Innocent Bystander)
Facts: The Sta. Rosa Coca-Col a Pl ant Empl oyees Uni on (Uni on) i s the sol e and excl usi ve bargai ningrepresentati ve of
the regul ar dai l y pai d workers and the monthl y pai d non-commi ssi on-earni ng empl oyees of the Coca-Col a Bottl ers
Phi l i ppi nes, Inc. (Company) i n i ts Sta. Ros a, Laguna pl ant.

Upon the expi rati on of the CBA, the Uni on i nformed the Company of i ts desi re to renegoti ate i ts terms. The CBA
meeti ngs commenced on Jul y 26, 1999, where the Uni on and the Company di scussed the ground rul es of the
negoti ati ons. The Uni on i nsi sted that representati ves from the AlyansangmgaUnyonsa Coca-Cola be al l owed to si t
down as observers i n the CBA meeti ngs. The Uni on offi cers and members al so i nsi sted that thei r wages be based
on thei r work shi ft rates. For i ts part, the Company was of the vi ew that the members of the Al yansa were not
members of the bargai ni ng uni t. The Al yansa was a mere aggregate of empl oyees of the Company i n i ts vari ous
pl ants; and i s not a regi stered l abor organi zati on. Thus, an i mpasse ensued.

On August 30, 1999, the Uni on, i ts offi cers, di rectors and si x shop stewards fi l ed a “Noti ce of Stri ke” wi th the
NCMB.

The Uni on deci ded to parti ci pate i n a mass acti on organi zed by the Al yansa i n front of the Company’s premi ses.
Thus, the Uni on offi cers and members hel d a pi cket al ong the front peri meter of the pl ant on September 21, 1999.
As a resul t, al l of the 14 personnel of the Engi neeri ng Secti on of the Company di d not report for work, and 71
producti on personnel were al so absent. As a resul t, onl y one of the three bottl i ng l i nes operated duri ng the day
shi ft. Al l the three l i nes were operated duri ng the ni ght shi ft wi th cumul ati ve downti me of fi ve (5) hours due to
l ack of manni ng, compl ement and ski l l s requi rement. The vol ume of producti on for the day was short by 60,000
physi cal cases versus budget.

On October 13, 1999, the Company fi l ed a “Peti ti on to Decl are Stri ke Il l egal ”

Issue: WON the stri ke, dubbed by peti ti oner as pi cketi ng, i s i l l egal .

Hel d: Arti cl e 212(o) of the Labor Code defi nes stri ke as a temporary stoppage of work by the concerted acti on of
empl oyees as a resul t of an i ndustri al or l abor di spute. In Bangal i san v. CA, the Court rul ed that “the fact that the
conventi onal term ‘stri ke’ was not used by the stri ki ng empl oyees to descri be thei r common course of acti on i s
i nconsequenti al , si nce the substance of the si tuati on, and not i ts appearance, wi l l be deemed to be control l i ng.”
Pi cketi ng i nvol ves merel y the marchi ng to and fro at the premi ses of the empl oyer, usual l y accompani ed by the
di spl ay of pl acards and other si gns maki ng known the facts i nvol ved i n a l abor di spute. As appl i ed to a l abor
di spute, to pi cket means the stati oni ng of one or more persons to observe and attempt to observe. The purpose of
pi ckets i s sai d to be a means of peaceabl e persuasi on.

The basi c el ements of a stri ke are present i n thi s case. They marched to and fro i n front of the company’s premi ses
duri ng worki ng hours. Thus, peti ti oners engaged i n a concerted acti vi ty whi ch al ready affected the company’s
operati ons. The mass concerted acti vi ty consti tuted a stri ke.

For a stri ke to be val i d, the fol l owi ng procedural requi si tes provi ded by Art 263 of the Labor Code must be
observed: (a) a noti ce of stri ke fi l ed wi th the DOLE 30 days before the i ntended date thereof, or 15 days i n case of
unfai r l abor practi ce; (b) stri ke vote approved by a majori ty of the total uni on membershi p i n the bargai ni ng uni t
concerned obtai ned by secret bal l ot i n a meeti ng cal l ed for that purpose, (c) noti ce gi ven to the DOLE of the resul ts
of the voti ng at l eastseven days before the i ntended stri ke. These requi rements are mandatory and the fai l ure of a
uni on to compl y therewi th renders the stri ke i l l egal . It i s cl ear i n thi s case that peti ti oners total l y i gnored the
statutory requi rements and embarked on thei r i l l egal stri ke.Peti ti on deni ed.


78. MSF Tire and Rubber, Inc. vs. CA
Facts:
A l abor di spute arose between Phi l tread Ti re and Rubber Corporati on (Phi l tread) and pri vate respondent,
Phi l tread Ti re Workers' Uni on (Uni on), fi l ed a noti ce of stri ke i n the Nati onal Conci l i ati on and Medi ati on Board
(NCMB). Chargi ng Phi l tread wi th unfai r l abor practi ces for al l egedl y engagi ng i n uni on-busti ng for vi ol ati on of the
provi si ons of the col l ecti ve bargai ni ng agreement. Phi l tread, on the other hand, fi l ed a noti ce of l ock-out.

Duri ng the pendency of the l abor di spute, Phi l thread entered i nto a memorandum of agreement (MOA)
wi th Si am Tyre Publ i c Company Li mi ted (Si am Tyre). Under the Memorandum of Agreement, Phi l tread's pl ant and
equi pment woul d be sol d to a new company (peti ti oner MSF Ti re and Rubber, Inc.), 80% of whi ch woul d be owned
by Si am Tyre and 20% by Phi l tread, whi l e the l and on whi ch the pl ant was l ocated woul d be sol d to a nother
company (Sucat Land Corporati on), 60% of whi ch woul d be owned by Phi l tread and 40% by Si am Tyre.

Peti ti oner (MSF) then asked the Uni on to desi st from pi cketi ng outsi de i ts pl ant and to remove the
banners, streamers, and tent whi ch i t had pl aced outsi de the pl ant's fence. Uni on refused.

Peti ti oner fi l ed a compl ai nt for i njuncti on wi th damages agai nst the Uni on and the l atter's offi cers and
di rectors before the Regi onal Tri al Court. RTC deni ed Peti ti oner’s appl i cati on for i njuncti on and di smi ssed the
compl ai nt. However, upon MR, RTC granted the Injuncti on and Pl ai nti ff’s compl ai nt rei nstated. The Uni on el evated
the case to CA whi ch granted the Uni on’s peti ti on orderi ng the RTC to di smi ss the ci vi l case for l ack of juri sdi cti on.

Issue:

Whether Peti ti oner i s an i nnocent bystander wi th respect to the l abor di spute between Phi l tread and the
Uni on enti tl es i t to Wri t of Injuncti on from the ci vi l courts?

Hel d:

No. An "i nnocent bystander," who seeks to enjoi n a l abor stri ke, must sati sfy the court that asi de from
the grounds speci fi ed i n Rul e 58 of the Rul es of Court, it is entirely different from, without any connection
whatsoever to, either party to the dispute and, therefore, i ts i nterests are total l y forei gn to the context thereof.

For i nstance, i n PAFLU v.Cloribel, supra, thi s Court hel d that Wel l i ngton and Gal ang were enti rel y separate
enti ti es, di fferent from, and wi thout any connecti on whatsoever to, the Metropol i tan Bank and Trust Company,
agai nst whom the stri ke was di rected, other than the i nci dental fact that they are the bank's l andl ord and co-
l essee housed i n the same bui l di ng, respecti vel y.

Si mi l arl y, i n Liwayway Publications, Inc. v. Permanent Concrete Workers Union, thi s Court rul ed that
Liwayway was an "i nnocent bystander" and thus enti tl ed to enjoi n the uni on's stri ke because Li wayway's onl y
connecti on wi th the empl oyer company was the fact that both were si tuated i n the same premi ses.

In the present case, the "negoti ati on, contract of sal e, and the post transacti on" between Phi l tread, as
vendor, and Si am Tyre, as vendee, reveal s a l egal rel ati on between them whi ch, i n the i nterest of peti ti oner, the
transacti on between Phi l tread and Si am Tyre, was not a si mpl e sal e whereby Phi l tread ceased to have any
propri etary ri ghts over i ts sol d assets. This, together with the fact that private respondent uses the same plant or
factory; similar or substantially the same working conditions; same machinery, tools, and equipment; and
manufacture the same products as Philtread, lead us to safely conclude that private respondent's personality is so
closely linked to Philtread as to bar its entitlement to an injunctive writ.

Peti ti on Deni ed.


79. Club Filipino vs. Bautista, et. al.
Facts:

Cl ub Fi l i pi no i s a non-stock, non-profi t corporati on dul y formed, organi zed and exi sti ng under Phi l i ppi ne
l aws, wi th peti ti oner Atty. Roberto F. de Leon as i ts presi dent. Respondents were former offi cers and members of
the Cl ub Fi l i pi no Empl oyees Associ ati on (the uni on).

The uni on and the company had a col l ecti ve bargai ni ng agreement (CBA) whi ch expi red on May 31, 2000.
Pri or to the expi rati on of the CBA and wi thi n the freedom peri od, the uni on made several demands for negoti ati on
but the company repl i ed that i t coul d not muster a quorum, thus no CBA negoti ati ons coul d be hel d. No
negoti ati ons, however, took pl ace for vari ous reasons proffered by the company, among them the i l l ness of the
chai rman of the management panel .

Uni on fi l ed a request for preventi ve medi ati on wi th NCMB. However, the Uni on sti l l fai l ed to bri ng the
management to the negoti ati ng tabl e. The uni on and management onl y met on Apri l 5, 2001, but the meeti ng
concl uded wi th a decl arati on by both parti es of a deadl ock i n thei r negoti ati ons.

Uni on fi l ed a noti ce of stri ke wi th the NCMB on the grounds of bargai ni ng deadl ock and fai lure to bargai n.
The company fi l ed before the Nati onal Labor Rel ati ons Commi ssi on (NLRC) a peti ti on to decl are the stri ke i l l egal .
The company further prayed that al l uni on offi cers who parti ci pated i n the i l l egal stri ke be consi dered separated
from the servi ce.

The Labor Arbi ter decl ared the stri ke procedural l y i nfi rm and therefore i l l egal . The l abor arbi ter noted
that the uni on fai l ed to attach i ts wri tten CBA proposal and the company’s counter-proposal to the noti ce of stri ke
and to provi de proof of a request for a conference to settl e the di spute. NLRC affi rmed the Labor Arbi ter’s
deci si on. CA set asi de the rul i ngs of the NLRC.

Issue:

Whether or not the stri ke staged by respondents was l egal ?

Hel d:

Yes. Rul e XXII, Secti on 4 of the Omni bus Rul es Impl ementi ng the Labor Code states: In cases of bargaining
deadlocks, the notice shall, as far as practicable, further state the unresolved issues in the bargaining negotiations
and be accompanied by the written proposals of the union, the counter-proposals of the employer and the proof of
a request for conference to settle differences. In cases of unfair labor practices, the notice shall, as far as
practicable, state the acts complained of, and efforts taken to resolve the dispute amicably.

Any notice which does not conform with the requirements of this and the foregoing section shall be deemed
as not having been filed and the party concerned shall be so informed by the regional branch of the Board.

In the i nstant case, the uni on cannot be faul ted for i ts omi ssi on. The uni on coul d not have attached the
counter-proposal of the company i n the noti ce of stri ke i t submi tted to the NCMB as there was no such counter-
proposal.The union filed a notice of strike on April 6, 2001 after several requests to start negotiations proved futile.
It was only on April 22, 2001, or after two weeks, when the company formally responded to the union by submitting
the first part of its counter-proposal. Worse, it took the company another three weeks to complete it by submitting
on May 11, 2001 the second part of its counter-proposal. This was almost a year after the expiration of the CBA
sought to be renewed.

In thi s case, attachi ng the counter-proposal of the company to the noti ce of stri ke of the uni on was not
practi cabl e. It was absurd to expect the union to produce the company’s counter-proposal which it did not
have. One cannot gi ve what one does not have. Indeed, compl i ance wi th the requi rement was i mpossi bl e because
no counter-proposal exi sted at the ti me the uni on fi l ed a noti ce of stri ke. The l aw does not exact compl i ance wi th
the i mpossi bl e. Nemoteneturadimpossibile.
Another error commi tted by the l abor arbi ter was hi s decl arati on that respondents, as uni on offi cers,
automati cal l y severed thei r empl oyment wi th the company due to the al l eged i l l egal stri ke. In the fi rst pl ace, there
was no i l l egal stri ke. Moreover, i t i s hornbook doctri ne that a mere finding of the illegality of the strike should not
be automatically followed by the wholesale dismissal of the strikers from employment.

The Law sai d: Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union
officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his
employment status.

Thi s refl ects the i ntent of the l egi sl ature to requi re “knowl edge” as a condi ti on sine qua non before a
uni on offi cer can be di smi ssed from empl oyment for parti ci pati ng i n an i l l egal stri ke.

Peti ti on Deni ed.


80. PLDT vs. Manggagawang Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas
Facts:

The members of respondent uni on l earned that a redundancy program woul d be i mpl emented by the
peti ti oner. Thereupon i t fi l ed a Noti ce of Stri ke wi th the NCMB al l egi ng Unfai r Labor Practi ce agai nst PLDT. A
number of conci l i ati on meeti ngs, conducted by the NCMB, were hel d between the parti es. However, these efforts
proved futi l e.

The pri vate respondent staged a stri ke. 383 Uni on members were termi nated from servi ce pursuant to
PLDT’s redundancy program. Secretary Patri ci a Sto. Tomas i ssued an Order stati ng:

“Strike staged by the Union is hereby enjoined. All striking workers are hereby directed to return to work within
twenty four (24) hours from receipt of this Order, except those who were terminated due to redundancy.”

Moti on for Parti al Reconsi derati on was fi l ed by the Pri vate Respondents. Secretary Issued an Order whi ch referred
the case to the NLRC for appropri ate acti on.

Pri vate Respondent however, el evated the case to the CA. The l atter granted the Peti ti on and Set Asi de and
nul l i fi ed the Order of Secretary.

Issue:

1. Whether or not Speci al Ci vi l Acti on for Certi orari i nsti tuted by Respondents before the CA was
procedural l y Preci se?

2. Whether the subject orders of the Secretary of DOLE excl udi ng from the Return to Work order the
workers di smi ssed due to the redundancy program of peti ti oner val i d or not?

Hel d:

1. Yes. The i nsti tuti on of the speci al ci vi l acti on for certiorari before the Court of Appeal s was procedural l y
sound. In a special civil action of certiorari, the only question that may be raised is whether or not the
respondent has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

The respondent asserted i n the court a quo that the Secretary vi ol ated the l aw and juri sprudence, and exceeded
her authori ty when she expressl y prevented from returni ng to work those who were termi nated due to al l eged
redundancy whi l e the stri ke was ongoi ng.

2. Peti ti on must fai l . When the Secretary exercises the powers granted by Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, he
is, indeed, granted great breadth of discretion.

Art 263. Strikes, picketing, and lockouts. –

(g) When in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry
indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the
dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or
certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified
in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or
certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall
immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the
strike or lockout.

From the foregoi ng, i t i s qui te apparent that no matter how broad the exerci se of di screti on i s, the same must be
within the confines of law. Thus, the wi de l ati tude of di screti on gi ven the Secretary under Art. 263(g) shal l and
must be wi thi n the sphere of l aw.

As Arti cl e 263(g) i s cl ear and unequi vocal i n stati ng that ALL striking or locked out employees shall immediately
return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit ALL workers under the same
terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout, then the unmistakable mandate must be followed by
the Secretary.

Members of the pri vate respondent who were di smi ssed due to al l eged redundancy were sti l l empl oyed by the
peti ti oner and hol di ng thei r respecti ve posi ti ons. Thi s i s the status quo that must be mai ntai ned.


81. Capitol Medical Center vs. Trajano
Facts:

Capi tol Medi cal Centeri s a hospi tal wi th address at Panay Avenue corner Scout Magbanua Street, Quezon
Ci ty. Upon the other hand, Capi tol Medi cal Center Empl oyees Associ ati on-Al liance of Fi l i pi no Workers,respondent,
i s a dul y regi stered l abor uni on acti ng as the certi fi ed col l ecti ve bargai ni ng agent of the rank-and-fi l e empl oyees of
peti ti oner hospi tal .

Respondent uni on, sent peti ti oner a l etter requesti ng a negoti ati on of thei r Col l ecti ve Bargai ni ng
Agreement (CBA). Peti ti oner, chal l engi ng the uni on’s l egi ti macy, refused to bargai n wi th respondent.
Subsequentl y, Peti ti oner fi l ed wi th the Bureau of Labor Rel ati ons (BLR), Department of Labor and Empl oyment, a
peti ti on for cancel l ati on of respondent’s certi fi cate of regi strati on.

Respondent Uni on fi l ed wi th the Nati onal Conci l i ati on and Medi ati on Board (NCMB), Nati onal Capi tal
Regi on, a noti ce of stri ke. Despi te several conferences and efforts of the desi gnated conci l i ator-medi ator, the
parti es fai l ed to reach an ami cabl e settl ement.

Former Labor Secretary Leonardo A. Qui sumbi ng, i ssued an Order assumi ng juri sdi cti on over the l abor
di spute and orderi ng al l stri ki ng workers to return to work and the management to resume normal operati ons.

Peti ti oner fi l ed wi th thi s Court a peti ti on for certiorari assai l i ng the Labor Secretary’s Orders before the
CA.

Regi onal Di rector, i ssued an Order denyi ng the peti ti on for cancel l ati on of respondent uni on’s certi fi cate
of regi strati on. CA rendered a Deci si on affi rmi ng the Orders of the Secretary of Labor.




Issue:

1. Whether Peti ti on for cancel l ati on of respondent’s Uni on’s certi fi cate of regi strati on i nvol ves a
prejudi ci al questi on that shoul d be settl ed before the Secretary of Labor coul d order the parti es to
bargai n col l ecti vel y?

2. Whether the Secretary of Labor cannot exerci se hi s power under Arti cl e 263(g) wi thout observi ng the
requi rments of due process?

Hel d:

1. No. Pendency of a peti ti on for cancel l ati on of uni on regi strati on does not precl ude col l ecti ve
bargai ni ng.

That there is a pending cancellation proceedings against the respondent Union is not a bar to set in motion the
mechanics of collective bargaining. If a certification election may still be ordered despite the pendency of a petition
to cancel the union’s registration certificate, more so should the collective bargaining process continue despite its
pendency.

Majori ty status of the respondent Uni on i s not affected by the pendency of the Peti ti on for Cancel l ati on pendi ng
agai nst i t. Unl ess i ts certi fi cate of regi strati on and i ts status as the certi fi ed bargai ni ng agent are revoked, the
Hospi tal i s, by express provi si on of the l aw, duty bound to col l ecti vel y bargai n wi th the Uni on.

2. In l abor di sputes adversel y affecti ng the conti nued operati on of such hospi tal s, cl i ni cs or medi cal
i nsti tuti ons, i t shal l be the duty of the stri ki ng uni on or l ocki ng-out empl oyer to provi de and mai ntai n
an effecti ve skel etal workforce of medi cal and other heal th personnel , whose movement and servi ces
shal l be unhampered and unrestri cted, as are necessary to i nsure the proper a nd adequate
protecti on of the l i fe and heal th of i ts pati ents, most especi al l y emergency cases, for the durati on of
the stri ke or l ockout. In such cases, therefore, the Secretary of Labor and Employment is mandated to
immediately assume, within twenty-four (24) hours from knowledge of the occurrence of such a strike
or lockout, jurisdiction over the same or certify it to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. For
thi s purpose, the contendi ng parti es are stri ctl y enjoi ned to compl y wi th such orders, prohi bi ti ons
and/or i njuncti ons as are i ssued by the Secretary of Labor and Empl oyment or the Commi ssi on, under
pai n of i mmedi ate di sci plinary acti on, i ncluding di smi ssal or l oss of empl oyment status or payment by
the l ocki ng-out empl oyer of backwages, damages and other affi rmati ve rel i ef, even cri mi nal
prosecuti on agai nst ei ther or both of them.

The Presi dent of the Phi l i ppi nes shal l not be precl uded from determi ni ng the i ndustri es that, i n hi s opi ni on, are
i ndi spensabl e to the nati onal i nterest, and from i nterveni ng at any ti me and assumi ng juri sdi cti on over any such
l abor di spute i n order to settl e or termi nate the same.

Discretion to assume jurisdiction may be exercised by the Secretary of Labor and Employment without the necessity
of prior notice or hearing given to any of the parties. The rati onal e for hi s pri mary assumpti on of juri sdi cti on can
justi fi abl y rest on hi s own consi derati on of the exi gency of the si tuati on i n rel ati on to the nati onal i nterests.

Peti ti on Deni ed.


82. Phimco Industries Inc. vs. Brillantes
Facts:

Phi mco Industri es Labor Associ ati on (PILA) fi l ed a noti ce of stri ke wi th the Nati onal Conci l i ati on and
Medi ati on Board, NCR, agai nst PHIMCO after a deadl ock i n the col l ecti ve bargai ni ng and negoti ati on. After several
conci l i ati on conferences cal l ed by the contendi ng parti es fai l ed to resol ve thei r di fferences PILA, staged a stri ke.

PILA presented a peti ti on for the i nterventi on of the Secretary of Labor i n the resol uti on of the l abor
di spute, to whi ch peti ti on PHIMCO opposed. Pendi ng resol uti on of the sai d peti ti on PHIMCO sent noti ce of
termi nati on to some 47 workers i ncl udi ng several uni on offi cers.

Acti ng Secretary of Labor Jose Bri l l antes assumed juri sdicti on over the l abor di spute and i ssued hi s Order;
“All the striking workers, except those who have been handed down termination papers on June 26, 1995,
are hereby directed to return to work within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of this Order and for the Company
to accept them back under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the strike.
The parties are further ordered to cease and desist from committing any act that will aggravate the situation.”
Issue:
Whether the Secretary of Labor acted wi th grave abuse of di screti on i n assumi ng jurisdi cti on over subject
l abor di spute?
Hel d:
Yes. The Labor Code vests i n the Secretary of Labor the discretion to determine what industries are
indispensable to the national interest. Accordi ngl y, upon the determi nati on by the Secretary of Labor that such
i ndustry i s i ndi spensabl e to the nati onal i nterest, he wi l l assume juri sdi cti on over the l abor di spute i n the sai d
i ndustry.This power, however, is not without any limitation.
The pri vate respondent di d not even make any effort to touch on the i ndi spensabi l i ty of the match factory
to the nati onal i nterest. It must have been aware that a match factory, though of val ue, can scarcel y be consi dered
as an i ndustry “i ndi spensabl e to the nati onal i nterest” as i t cannot be i n the same category as “generati on and
di stri buti on of energy, or those undertaken by banks, hospi tal s, and export-ori ented i ndustri es.
It is thus evident from the foregoing that the Secretary’s assumption of jurisdiction grounded on the
alleged “obtaining circumstances” and noton a determination that the industry involved in the labor dispute is one
indispensable to the “national interest”, the standard set by the legislature, constitutes grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction.
Peti ti on Granted.


83. FEU-NRMF vs. FEU-NRMF Employees Association
Facts:
Peti ti oner FEU-NRMF and respondent uni on entered i nto a Col l ecti ve Bargai ni ng Agreement (CBA) that
wi l l expi re on 30 Apri l 1996.
In vi ew of the forthcomi ng expi ry, respondent uni on, on 21 March 1996, sent a l etter -proposal to
peti ti oner FEU-NRMF stati ng therei n thei r economi c and non-economi c proposal s for the negoti ati on of the new
CBA.
Peti ti oner FEU-NRMF sent a l etter-repl y rejecti ng respondent uni on’s demands and proposed to mai ntai n
the same provi si ons of the ol d CBA. Peti ti oner FEU-NRMF reasoned that due to fi nanci al constrai nts, i t cannot
afford to accede to a number of thei r demands for educati onal and death benefi ts, uni forms, l ongeti vi ty pay, meal
al l owance and speci al pay, but neverthel ess gave an assurance that i t wi l l seri ousl y consi der thei r proposal on
sal ary i ncrease.
In an effort to arri ve at a compromi se, subsequent conci l i ati on proceedi ngs were conducted before the
Nati onal Conci l i ati on and Medi ati on Board - Nati onal Capi tal Regi on (NCMB-NCR) but because of the unyi el di ng
stance of both parti es, the negoti ati on fai l ed.
Respondent uni on fi l ed a Noti ce of Stri ke before NCMB-NCR on the ground of bargai ni ng deadl ock. A
stri ke vote was conducted and the resul t thereof was submi tted to NCMB-NCR. After the expi rati on of the 30 day
cool i ng off peri od and the 7 day stri ke ban, respondent uni on,staged a stri ke.
Peti ti oner FEU-NRMF fi l ed a Peti ti on for the Assumpti on of Juri sdi cti on or for Certi fi cati on of Labor
Di spute wi th the Nati onal Labor Rel ati ons Commi ssi on (NLRC), underscori ng the fact that i t i s a medi cal i nsti tuti on
engaged i n the busi ness of provi di ng heal th care for i ts pati ents.

Secretary of Labor, granted the peti ti on and thus i ssued an Order assumi ng juri sdi cti on over the l abor
di spute, thereby prohi bi ti ng any stri ke or l ockout whether actual or i mpendi ng, and enjoi ni ng the parti es from
commi tti ng any acts whi ch may exacerbate the si tuati on.

NLRC process server, certi fi ed that he attempted to serve a copy of the Assumpti on of Juri sdi cti on Order
to the uni on offi cers but si nce no one was around at the stri ke area, he just posted copi es of the sai d Order at
several conspi cuous pl aces wi thi n the premi ses of the hospi tal .

Cl ai mi ng that they had no knowl edge that the Secretary of Labor al ready assumed juri sdi cti on over the
pendi ng l abor di spute as they were not abl e to recei ve a copy of the Assumpti on of Juri sdi cti on Order, stri ki ng
empl oyees conti nued hol di ng a stri ke.

Subsequentl y, peti ti oner FEU-NRMF fi l ed a case before the NLRC, contendi ng that respondent uni on
staged the stri ke i n defi ance of the Assumpti on of Juri sdi cti on Order; hence, i t was i l l egal .

Labor Arbi ter rendered Deci si on decl ari ng the stri ke i l l egal and di smi ssi ng the uni on offi cers for
conducti ng the stri ke i n defi ance of the Assumpti on of Juri sdi cti on Order. Upon Appeal , NLRC i ssued a Resol uti on
affi rmi ng in toto the Deci si on of the Labor Arbi ter and uphel d the i l l egal i ty of the stri ke and l oss of empl oyment
status of the uni on offi cers.

When the case was el evated, CA rendered a Deci si on granti ng the Peti ti on and reversi ng the assai l ed
Resol uti on. The appel l ate court found that no personal servi ce was val i dl y effected by the process server that
coul d bi nd the stri ki ng empl oyees.

Issues:

Whether the servi ce of the Assumpti on of Juri sdi cti on Order was val i dl y eff ected by the process server so
as to bi nd the respondent uni on and hol d them l i abl e for the acts commi tted subsequent to the i ssuance of the
sai d Order.

Hel d:

No. The process server resorted to posti ng the Order when personal servi ce was rendered i mposs i bl e
si nce the stri ki ng empl oyees were not present at the stri ke area. This mode of service, however, i s notsanctioned
by either the NLRC Revised Rules of Procedure or the Revised Rules of Court.

An Order i ssued by the Secretary of Labor assumi ng juri sdi cti on over the l abor di spute i s not a fi nal
judgment for i t does not di spose of the l abor di spute wi th fi nal i ty. Consequentl y, the rul e on servi ce of summons
and orders, and not the provi so on servi ce of deci si ons and fi nal awards, governs the servi ce of the Assumpti on of
Juri sdi cti on Order.

Under the NLRC Revi sed Rul es of Procedure, servi ce of copi es of orders shoul d be made by the process
server ei ther personally or through registered mail. However, due to the urgent nature of the Assumption of
Jurisdiction Order and the public policy underlying the injunction carried by the issuance of the said Order, service of
copies of the same should be made in the most expeditious and effective manner, without any delay, ensuring its
immediate receipt by the i ntended parti es as may be warranted under the ci rcumstances. Accordi ngl y, i n thi s
case, personal service is the proper mode of serving the Assumption of Jurisdiction Order.

It i s al so provi ded under the same rul es that i n speci al ci rcumstances, servi ce of summons may be
effected i n accordance wi th the perti nent provi si ons of the Rul es of Court.

Parentheti cal l y, the manner upon whi ch personal servi ce may be made i s prescri bed by the fol l owi ng
provi si ons of the Revi sed Rul es of Court:

Rul e 13. Fi l i ng and Servi ce of Pl eadi ngs, Judgments and Other Papers.

Secti on 6. Personal service. – Servi ce of the papers may be made by delivering personally a copy to the party
or his counsel, or by leaving it in his office with his clerk or with a person having charge thereof. i f no person i s
found i n hi s offi ce, or hi s offi ce i s not known, or he has no offi ce, then by l eavi ng a copy, between the hours of
ei ght i n the morni ng and si x i n the eveni ng, at the party’s or counsel ’s resi dence, i f known, wi th a pers on of
suffi ci ent age and di screti on then resi di ng therei n.

Cl earl y, personal service effectively ensures that the notice desired under the constitutional requirement of due
process is accomplished. If, however, efforts to fi nd the party concerned personal l y woul d make prompt servi ce
i mpossi bl e, servi ce may be compl eted by substi tuted servi ce, that i s, by l eavi ng a copy, between the hours of ei ght
i n the morni ng and si x i n the eveni ng, at the party’s or counsel ’s resi dence, i f known, wi th a person of suffi ci ent
age and di screti on then resi di ng therei n.

Empl oyment i s a property ri ght of whi ch one cannot be depri ved of wi thout due process. Merely posting copies of
the Assumption of Jurisdiction Order does not satisfy the rigid requirement for proper service outlined by the above
stated rules. Needl ess to say, the manner of servi ce made by the process server was i nval i d and
i rregul ar. Respondent uni on coul d not therefore be adjudged to have defi ed the sai d Order si nce i t was not
properl y appri sed thereof. Accordingly, the strike conducted by the respondent union was valid under the
circumstances.

For a stri ke to be val i d, the fol l owi ng requi si tes must concur:
1. The thi rty-day noti ce or the fi fteen-day noti ce, i n case of unfai r l abor practi ces;
2. The two-thi rds (2/3) requi red vote to stri ke done by secret bal l ot; and
3. The submi ssi on of the stri ke vote to the Department of Labor and Empl oyment at l east seven days pri or to
the stri ke.
4. In addition, in case of strikes in hospitals, clinics and medical insti tutions, i t shal l be the duty of the striking
employees to provide and maintain an effective and skeletal workforce of medical and other health
personnel in order to insure the proper and adequate protection of the life and health of its patients.

These procedural requi rements, al ong wi th the mandatory cool i ng off and stri ke ban peri ods had been ful l y
observed by the respondent uni on.

As the stri ke conducted by the respondent uni on i s val i d and l egal , there i s therefore no cogent reason to dismiss
the union officers.

Peti ti on Deni ed.


84. Union of Filipro Employees vs. NLRC
Facts:

Peti ti oner Uni on of the Fi l i pro Empl oyees, the sol e and excl usi ve bargai ni ng agent of al l rank-and-fi l e
empl oyees of Nestl e Phi l i ppi nes, fi l ed a Noti ce of Stri ke at the Depar tment of Labor rai si ng the i ssues of CBA
deadl ock and unfai r l abor practi ce.

(NCMB) i nvi ted the parti es for a conference for the purpose of settl i ng the di spute. Pri vate Respondent
NESTLE assai l ed the l egal personal i ty of the proponents of the sai d noti ce of stri ke to represent the Nestl e
empl oyees.

Thi s notwi thstandi ng, the NCMB proceeded to i nvi te the parti es to attend the conci l i ati on meeti ngs and
to whi ch pri vate respondent fai l ed to attend contendi ng that i t wi l l deal onl y wi th a negoti ati ng panel dul y
consti tuted and mandated i n accordance wi th the UFE Consti tuti on and By-l aws.

The Company termi nated from empl oyment al l UFE Uni on offi cers, headed by i ts presi dent, Mr. Manuel
Sarmi ento, and al l the members of the negoti ati ng panel for i nsti gati ng and knowi ngl y parti ci pati ng i n a stri ke
staged wi thout any noti ce of stri ke fi l ed and a stri ke vote obtai ned for the purpose.

Uni on fi l ed a compl ai nt for i l l egal di smi ssal . The Labor Arbi ter, i n a deci si on uphel d the val i di ty of the
di smi ssal of sai d uni on offi cers. The deci si on was l ater on affi rmed by the respondent NLRC en banc.

Respondent company contends that, "wi th the di smi ssal of UFE offi cers i ncl udi ng al l the members of the
uni on negoti ati ng panel as l ater on confi rmed by the NLRC en banc, sai d uni on negoti ati ng panel thus ceased to
exi st and i ts former members di vested of any l egal personal i ty, standi ng and capaci ty to act as such or represent
the uni on i n any manner whatsoever."

Peti ti oner fi l ed a moti on aski ng the Secretary of Labor to ass ume juri sdi cti on over the di spute of deadl ock
i n col l ecti ve bargai ni ng between the parti es. Labor Secretary Frankl i n Dri l on certi fi ed to the NLRC the sai d di spute
between the UFE and Nestl e, Phi l i ppi nes, Secretary Dri l onhereby certi fi es the sol e i ssue of deadl ock i n CBA
negoti ati ons and di rected the NLRC to cal l al l the parti es i mmedi atel y and resol ve the CBA deadl ock wi thi n twenty
(20) days from submi ssi on of the case for resol uti on.

NLRC promul gated a resol uti on granti ng wage i ncrease and other benefi ts to Nestl e's empl oyees, rul i ng
on non-economi c i ssues, as wel l as absol vi ng the pri vate respondent of the Unfai r Labor Practi ce charge.

Peti ti oner fi nds sai d resol uti on to be i nadequate and accordi ngl y, does not agree therewi th. Hence
el evated the case to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether or not NLRC commi tted grave abuse of di screti on i n resol vi ng the i ssue certi fi ed by the Secretary
of Labor and formul ati ng a CBA?

Hel d:

Surpreme Court rul ed that NLRC commi tted no grave abuse of di screti on i n resol vi ng the i ssue certi fi ed by
the Secretary and formul ati ng a CBA whi ch covers the bargai ni ng uni ts consi sti ng of al l regul ar rank-and-fi l e
empl oyees of the respondent company.

Public respondent's resolution is proper and in full compliance with the order of the Secretary of Labor.

The assumpti on of juri sdi cti on by the Secretary of Labor over l abor di sputes causi ng or l i kel y to cause a
stri ke or l ockout i n an i ndustry i ndi spensabl e to the nati onal i nterest i s i n the nature of a police power measure. It
cannot be deni ed that the private respondent is engaged in an undertaking affected with public interest being one
of the largest manufacturers of food products. The compel l i ng consi derati on of the Secretary's assumpti on of
juri sdi cti on i s the fact that a prolonged strike or lockout is inimical to the national economy and thus, the need to
implement some measures to suppress any act which will hinder the company's essential productions is
indispensable for the promotion of the common good.

Under thi s si tuati on, the Secretary's certi fi cati on order for compul sory arbi trati on whi ch was i ntended for
the i mmedi ate formul ati on of an al ready del ayed CBA was proper. Corol l ari l y, the NLRC was thereby charged wi th
the task of i mpl ementi ng the certi fi cati on order for compul sory arbi trati on. As the i mpl ementi ng body, i ts
authori ty di d not i ncl ude the power to amend the Secretary's order.

For the same reason, the prayer to declare the respondent company guilty of acts of unfair labor practice
when it allegedly resorted to practices designed to delay the collective bargaining negotiations cannot be
subsumed in this petition, it being beyond the scope of the certification order.

The NLRC i s not si tti ng as a judi ci al court but as an admi ni strati ve body charged wi th the duty to
i mpl ement the order of the Secretary. Its functi on onl y i s to formul ate the terms and condi ti ons of the CBA and
cannot go beyond the scope of the order.

In the l i ght of the foregoi ng, the Court uphol ds the pronouncement of the NLRC hol di ng the CBA to be
si gned by the parti es effecti ve upon the promul gati on of the assai l ed resol uti on.

Moreover, the NLRC i s i n the best posi ti on to formul ate a CBA whi ch i s equi tabl e to al l concerned.
Because of i ts experti se i n settl i ng l abor di sputes, i t i s i mbued wi th competence to apprai se and eval uate the
evi dence and posi ti ons presented by the parti es. In the absence of a cl ear showi ng of grave abuse of di screti on,
the fi ndi ngs of the respondent NLRC on the terms of the CBA shoul d not be di sturbed.

Peti ti on Di smi ssed.


85. Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) vs. Chavez
Facts:
OWWA i s a government agency tasked pri mari l y to protect the i nterest and promote the wel fare of
overseas Fi l i pi no workers (OFWs).

On 9 January 2004, as there was yet no formal OWWA structure dul y approved by the Department of
Budget and Management (DBM) and the Ci vi l Servi ce Commi ssi on (CSC), the OWWA Board of Trustees passed
Resol uti on No. 001,beari ng the ti tl e “Approvi ng the Structure of the Overseas Workers Wel fare Admi ni strati on,”
and depi cti ng the organi zati onal structure and staffi ng pattern of the OWWA, as approved by Patri ci a A. Sto.
Tomas (Sto. Tomas), then Chai r of the OWWA Board of Trustees and then Secretary of the DOLE.

DBM Secretary Emi l i a T. Boncodi n, approved the organi zati onal structure and staffi ng pattern of the
OWWA.

Respondents fi l ed wi th the RTC, a Compl ai nt for Annul ment of the Organi zati onal Structure of the OWWA,
as approved by OWWA Board Resol uti onwi th Prayer for the Issuance of a Wri t of Prel i mi nary Injuncti on.

Respondents posi ted that the approved Organi zati onal Structure and Staffi ng Pattern of the OWWA
i ncreases the number of regul ar pl anti l l a posi ti ons from 356 to 400. They further averred that the pl anti l l a
posi ti ons i n the Central Offi ce wi l l be reduced from 250 to 140, whi l e the regi onal offi ces wi l l have an i ncrease of
164 posi ti ons. Accordi ng to the respondents, the resul ti ng decrease i n the number of empl oyees i n the Central
Offi ce wi l l resul t i n the constructi ve di smi ssal of at l eas t 110 empl oyees.

RTC i ssued an order granti ng respondents’ prayer for a wri t of prel i mi nary i njuncti on. In the grant
thereof, the RTC reasoned that any move to reorgani ze the structure of the OWWA requi res an amendatory l aw.

Peti ti oner, thru the Offi ce of the Sol i ci tor General (OSG),fi l ed wi th the Court of Appeal s, a Peti ti on
for Certiorari and Prohi bi ti on wi th Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary Restrai ni ng Order and Wri t of Prel i mi nary
Injuncti on under Rul e 65 of the Rul es of Court, assai l i ng the RTC Order.

CA rendered deci si on di smi ssi ng the Peti ti on and affi rmed the Tri al Court’s fi ndi ng that respondents
possess a cl ear and l egal ri ght to the i mmedi ate i ssuance of the wri t.

Issue:

Whether or not Prel i mi nary Injuncti on i ssued by the RTC i s proper?

Hel d:

A prel i mi nary i njuncti on i s granted at any stage of an acti on or proceedi ng pri or to the judgment or fi nal
order.It persi sts unti l i t i s di ssol ved or unti l the termi nati on of the acti on wi thout the court i ssui ng a
fi nal i njuncti on.

A prel i mi nary i njunction i s merel y a provi si onal remedy, an adjunct to the mai n case subject to the l atter’s
outcome, the sole objective of which is to preserve the status quo until the trial court hears fully the merits of the
case.

Thestatus quo shoul d be that exi sti ng at the ti me of the fi l i ng of the case.The status quo usual l y preserved
by a prel i mi nary i njuncti on i s the last actual, peaceable and uncontested status which preceded the actual
controversy.

Supreme Court hel d that RTC, i n granti ng the assai l ed wri t of prel i mi nary i njuncti on, commi tted grave
abuse of di screti on amounti ng to l ack of juri sdi cti on.

In the case at bar, the RTC did not maintain the status quo when it issued the writ of preliminary
injunction. Rather, i t effectively restored the situation prior to the status quo, in effect, disposing the issue of the
main case without trial on the merits.

Courts shoul d avoi d i ssuing a wri t of prel i mi nary i njunction whi ch woul d i n effect di spose of the mai n case
wi thout tri al . RTC did not maintain the status quo but restored the landscape before the implementation of
OWWA’s reorganization. In thus issuing the writ of preliminary injunction, the substantive issues of the main case
were resolved by the trial court. What was done by the RTC was qui te si mpl y a di sposi ti on of the case wi thout
tri al . Thi s i s an error i n l aw and an exerci se of grave abuse of di screti on.

Assumi ng arguendo that respondents stand to be i n danger of bei ng transferred due to the
reorgani zati on, under the l aw, any empl oyee who questi ons the val i di ty of hi s transfer shoul d appeal to the
CSC.Even then, admi ni strati ve remedi es must be exhausted before resort to the regul ar courts can be had.

Fi nal l y, as aptl y poi nted out by the OSG, the acts sought to be prohi bi ted had been
accompl i shed. Injuncti on wi l l not l i e where the acts sought to be enjoi ned have al ready been accompl i shed or
consummated.OWWA’s reorgani zati on started to run upon the approval by the Board of Trustees of i ts Resol uti on
No. 001 enti tl ed, “Approvi ng the Structure of the Overseas Workers Wel fare Admi ni strati on.” Subsequentl y, a
seri es of i ssuances whi ch approved the organi zati onal structure and staffi ng pattern of the agency was i ssued by
the DBM, the OWWA Admi ni strator, and by the DOLE.Resolution No. 001 has already been implemented. Case law
has it that a writ of preliminary injunction will not issue if the act sought to be enjoined is afait accompli.

Peti ti on Granted.


85. Owwa v. Chavez, G.R. No. 169802, June 8, 2007
Facts
Thi s i s a peti ti on fi l ed by the OWWA assailing the Order of the Court of Appeal s affi rmi ng the deci si on of RTC Pasay
granti ng the Wri t of Prel i mi nary Injunction restraini ng OWWA from i mpl ementi ng i ts new organi zati onal structure.

As there was no formal DBM and CSC approved organi zati onal structure for OWWA pri or to January 9, 2004, the
OWWA Board of Trustees passed a Resol uti on approvi ng an organi zati onal and staffi ng structure for the
Organi zati on.

Subsequentl y the DBM approved such structure and i n a seri es of acti ons, th e OWWA i mpl emented the
reorgani zati on pursuant to the approved structure.

On June 29, 2004 however, the herei n respondents fi l ed a compl ai nt before the RTC of Pasay to annul the sai d
organi zati onal structure wi th a Prayer for i ssuance of the Wri t of Prel i mi nary Injuncti on agai nst OWWA.

The RTC deci ded i n favor of herei n respondents and i ssued the Wri t of Prel i mi nary Injuncti on. Questi oned before
the Court of Appeal s, the sai d Deci si on was affi rmed by the Appel l ate Court.

Issue

Whether or not the Court of Appeal s erred i n affi rmi ng the Deci si on of the RTC i n granti ng the Wri t of Prel i mi nary
Injuncti on.

Rul i ng

The i ssuance of the Wri t of Prel i mi nary Injuncti on by the RTC as affi rmed by the Appel l ate Court must be struck
down for havi ng been rendered i n grave abuse of di screti on.

The Court rul ed that the purpose of the Wri t of Prel i mi nary Injuncti on i s to preserve the status quo unti l the tri al
court hears ful l y the meri ts of the case. Status quo as defi ned by the Court, shoul d be that exi sti ng at the ti me of
the fi l i ng of the case. The status quo usual l y preserved by a prel i mi nary i njuncti on i s the l ast actual , peaceabl e and
uncontested status whi ch preceded the actual controversy.

The Court further rul ed that i n thi s case, the RTC di d not mai ntai n the status quo when i t i ssued the wri t of
prel i mi nary i njuncti on. Rather, i t effecti vel y restored the si tuati on pri or to the status quo, i n effect, di sposi ng the
i ssue wi thout tri al on the meri ts.


86. University of Immaculate Conception vs. Secretary of Labor
G.R. No. 151379 January 14, 2005 (payroll reinstatement)

FACTS

Uni versi ty of Immacul ate Concepti on fi l ed a peti ti on for revi ew of a deci si on of Court of Appeal s affi rmi ng the
authori ty of the Secretary of Labor i n orderi ng the rei nstatement of empl oyees termi nated by herei n peti ti oner.

Thi s case stemmed from a di sagreement duri ng the col l ecti ve bargai ning negoti ati ons pertai ning to the i ncl usion or
excl usi on of certai n confi denti al empl oyees. After the Panel of Vol untary Arbi trators deci ded to excl ude the
confi denti al empl oyees, the Uni on fi l ed a Moti on for Reconsi derati on and pendi ng the resol uti on of sai d MR, the
Uni on subsequentl y i ssued a Noti ce of Stri ke. The Uni versi ty on i ts part di smi ssed two uni on members duri ng the
30 day cool i ng off peri od. As the Uni on proceeded wi th the stri ke on January 20, 1995, the Secretary of Labor, on
January 23, 1995, assumed juri sdi cti on of the l abor di spute and accordi ngl y i ssued a Return to Work Order.

On February 8, 1995, the panel of vol untary arbi trator s deni ed the MR fi l ed by the Uni on.

On February 21, 1995, after the affected confi denti al empl oyees remai ned steadfast i n thei r cl ai m that they coul d
sti l l retai n thei r confi denti al posi ti ons whi l e bei ng members or offi cers of the Uni on, the Uni versi ty termi nated
thei r empl oyment.

Due to the termi nati on, the Uni on agai n went i nto stri ke and assai l ed the termi nati on as a vi ol ati on of the earl i er
order of the Secretary of Labor. The Secretary of Labor i ssued another di recti ve rei terati ng i ts previ ous order.

Al though consi stentl y denyi ng the successive MRs fi l ed by the Uni versi ty, the Secretary of Labor modi fi ed i ts Order
pl aci ng the termi nated empl oyees under payrol l rei nstatement i nstead of actual rei nstatement.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Order of the Secretary of Labor pl aci ng the termi nated empl oyees under payrol l rei nstatement
i nstead of actual rei nstatement i s justi fi ed.

RULING

Al though the Court stated that al l owi ng payrol l rei nstatement i nstead of actual rei nstatement i s usual l y not
al l owed, as the term “under the same terms and condi ti ons” makes i t cl ear that the norm i s actual rei nstatement,
the Court ci ted the “supersedi ng ci rcumstances’ ci ted by the Secretary of Labor as renderi ng the actual and
physi cal rei nstatement i mpracti cabl e and more l i kel y to exacerbate the si tuati on. The Court poi nted out to the
fi nal deci sion of the panel of arbi trators as to the confi denti al nature of the posi ti ons of the termi nated empl oyees,
as the ‘supersedi ng ci rcumstates’ menti oned by the Secretary of Labor.

The Court rul ed that the sai d acti on on the part of the Secretary of Labor i s justi fi ed and that there i s no grave
abuse of di screti on commi tted.



87. Manila Diamond Hotel Employees’ Union vs. CA 140518, December 16, 2004 (payroll reinstatement)

FACTS

Thi s case stemmed from a l abor di spute between the Mani l a Di amond Hotel and Mani l a Di amond Hotel
Empl oyees’ Uni on. The di spute l ed to stri ke and di smi ssal of certai n empl oyees. Due to the seemi ngl y exacerbati ng
si tuati on, the Secretary of Labor assumed juri sdi cti on of the di spute i nvoki ng Arti cl e 263 (g) of the Labor Code and
ordered the stri ki ng workers to return to work and the Management to accept them under the same terms and
condi ti ons prevai l i ng pri or to the stri ke.

The Hotel management refused to accept the returni ng workers and i nstead fi l ed a Moti on for Reconsi derati on of
the Secretary’s Order. Acti ng on the MR, the Secretary of Labor modi fi ed the earl i er di recti ve and i nstead of actual
rei nstatement, payrol l rei nstatement was di rected.

Acti ng on the Uni on’s appeal , the Court of Appeal s found for the Secretary of Labor rul i ng that the chal l enged
order i s merel y an error of judgment and not a grave abuse of di screti on and that payrol l rei nstatement i s not
prohi bi ted by l aw, but may be ‘cal l ed for’ under certai n ci rcumstances.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Secretary of Labor acted wi th grave abuse of di screti on i n orderi ng payrol l rei nstatement i n
l i eu of actual rei nstatement.

RULING

The Court rul ed that there was abuse of di screti on.

The Court poi nted out the provi si on of Arti cl e 263 (g) of the Labor Code i s not meant to protect l abor nor
management but serves as a means for the State to protect i tsel f from an emergency or cri si s. The Court poi nted
out that the l aw uses the preci se phrase of ‘under the same terms and condi ti ons,’ reveal i ng that i t contempl ates
onl y actual rei nstatement.

The Court further cl eared that i ts earl i er Rul i ng i n the UST case presented speci al ci rcumstances renderi ng actual
rei nstatement i mpracti cabl e and thi s ci rcumstance i s abs ent i n thi s case.


88. Portillo vs. Rudolf Lietz, G.R. No. 196539 October 10, 2012 (Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiter)

FACTS

Porti l l o resi gned from her post and eventual l y got hersel f empl oyed by a competi tor of Li etz.

Cl ai mi ng unpai d salari es, commi ssi on, 13
th
month pay and damages, Porti l l o fi l ed a compl ai nt before the NLRC. In
i ts defense, Li etz whi l e acknowl edgi ng i ts obl i gati ons to Porti l l o cl ai ms that the amount of i ts obl i gati ons be
subjected to l egal compensati on si nce Porti l l o breached her obl i gati on under the ‘Goodwi l l Cl ause’ i n her
empl oyment contract wi th Li etz.

Both the Labor Arbi ter and the NLRC, upon appeal , found for Porti l l o.

Li etz then fi l ed a peti ti on for certi orari before the Court of Appeal s whi ch i ni ti al l y affi rmed the NLRC Deci si on but
on Moti on for Reconsi derati on, modi fi ed i ts deci si on rul i ng that l egal compensati on i s proper i n thi s case.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Labor Arbi ter has juri sdi cti on over the cl ai m by Li etz for damages

RULING

There i s no causal connecti on between Porti l l o’s cl ai m for unpai d wages and Li etz cl ai m for damages for the
al l eged ‘Goodwi l l Cl ause’ vi ol ati on. Whi le Porti l lo’s cl aim arose from empl oyee empl oyer rel ati onshi p, Li etz cl ai m is
a post-empl oyment breach by Porti l l o.

Thi s absence of connecti on resul ts i n the absence of juri sdi cti on of the l abor arbi ter. The post empl oyment breach
i s wi thi n the juri sdi cti on of the regul ar courts.


89. University of St. Tomas Faculty vs. UST G.R. No. 203957, July 30, 2014 (Labor Arbiter Jurisdiction)
Thi s case stemmed from the confl i cti ng i nterpretati ons i n the Col l ecti ve Bargai ni ng Agreements (CBAs) between
the Uni versi ty of St. Tomas Facul ty (USTFU) and the Uni versi ty of Santo Tomas (UST).

Due to the ‘fai l ure’ of the UST to compl y wi th certai n economi c provi si ons i n the CBAs, the USTF fi l ed a compl ai nt
before the Labor Arbi ter. UST contested the same stati ng that the Labor Arbi ter has no juri sdi cti on si nce the cl ai m
i nvol ves a di spute i n the i nterpretati on and i mpl ementati on of the CBAs. The Labor Arbi ter rendered a deci si on i n
favor of the USTFU though al so rul i ng that there was no Unfai r Labor Practi ce commi tted by UST. Upon appeal the
NLRC found for the USTFU even modi fyi ng the Labor Arbi ter’s Rul i ng by i ncreasi ng the award.

Upon appeal , the Court of Appeal s (CA) found meri t i n the posi ti on of UST and rul ed that the Labor Arbi ter and the
NLRC di d not have juri sdi cti on to hear and deci de the case as the case i nvol ves the cl ari fi cati on of the rel evant
i tems i n the CBA whi ch properl y bel ongs under the juri sdi cti on of the vol untary arbi trator or panel of vol untary
arbi trators.

ISSUE
Whether or not the Labor Arbi ter has juri sdi cti on over the case.

RULING
The Court affi rmed the rul i ng of the CA whi ch found the Labor Arbi ter and the NLRC acti ng wi thout juri sdi cti on
ci ti ng Arti cl e 217 (c ) of the Labor Code whi ch provi des that the Labor Arbi ter shal l refer to the gri evance
machi nery and vol untary arbi trati on as provi ded i n the CBA those cases that i nvol ve the i nterpretati on of sai d
agreements.

Moreover, the Court rul ed that the ori gi nal and excl usive juri sdi cti on of the Labor Arbi ter under Arti cl e 217 (c ) for
money cl ai ms i s l i mi ted onl y to those ari si ng from s tatutes or contracts other than a Col l ecti ve Bargai ni ng
Agreement.


90. Indophil Textile Mills vs. Adviento, G.R. No. 171212, August 4, 2014 (Labor Arbiter Jurisdiction)
Advi ento was hi red by Indophi l as i ts Ci vi l Engi neer. In the course of hi s empl oyment wi th Indophi l , Advi ento
devel oped i l l nesses al l egedl y brought about by unsafe work envi ronment. Upon termi nati on of hi s servi ces,
Advi ento fi l ed a compl ai nt before the NLRC for al l eged i l l egal di smi ss al and for payment of backwages, separati on
pay, actual damages and attorney’s fees.

Subsequentl y, Advi ento fi l ed a compl ai nt before the RTC of Aparri , Cagayan, al l egi ng that he contracted such
occupati onal di sease by reason of the gross negl i gence of peti ti oner to provi de hi m wi th a safe and workabl e
envi ronment.

Indophi l sought to di smi ss the compl ai nt before the RTC sayi ng that the same fal l s under the ori gi nal and excl usi ve
juri sdiction of the Labor Arbi ter and a case i s al ready pendi ng before the NLRC beari ng the same cause and parti es.
The RTC di smi ssed the moti on of Indophi l . Indophi l sought the reversal from the Court of Appeal s but was l i kewi se
rejected by the Appel l ate Court.

ISSUE
Whether or not the case fal l s under the ori gi nal and excl usi ve juri sdi cti on of the Labor Arbi ter

RULING
The Court rul ed that the case does not fal l under the juri sdi cti on of the Labor Arbi ter. The Court poi nted out that
juri sdi cti on i s determi ned from the al l egati ons i n the compl ai nt and the compl ai nt of Advi ento i s cl earl y a case of
quasi -del i ct.

Ci ti ng i ts previ ous deci si ons, the Court rul ed that money cl ai ms where there i s no reasonabl e causal connecti on
wi th empl oyee-empl oyer rel ati ons fal l s wi thi n the juri sdi cti on of the regul ar courts.

The Court stressed that al though the acts compl ai ned of appear to consti tute matters i nvol vi ng empl oyee-
empl oyer rel ati ons si nce Advi ento used to be the Ci vi l Engi neer of Indophi l , the former’s cl ai m for damages i s
speci fi cal l y grounded on peti ti oner’s gross negl i gence to provi de a safe, heal thy and workabl e envi ronment for i ts
empl oyees – a case of quasi -del i ct.


91. 7K Corp. vs. Albarico, G.R. No. 182295, June 26, 2013 (Labor Arbiter Jurisdiction)
FACTS
Al bari co was empl oyed by 7K Corp. as a sal esman and was promoted several ti mes unti l he became acti ng fi el d
supervi sor.

In Apri l of 1993 however Al bari co’s servi ces was termi nated al l egedl y due to poor performance. He subsequentl y
submi tted hi s money cl ai ms agai nst 7K Corp. before the Nati onal Conci l i ati on and Medi ati on Board (NCMB).

Whi l e the NCMB case i s pendi ng, Al bari co fi l ed a compl ai nt agai nst 7K Corp. before the Nati onal Labor Rel ati ons
Commi ssi on (NLRC) for i l l egal di smi ssal wi th money cl ai ms. The Labor Arbi ter found for Al bari co. However, upon
appeal , the NLRC vacated the Labor Arbi ter’s deci si on ci ti ng forum shoppi ng on the part of Al bari co si nce the
NCMB case i s sti l l pendi ng.

After a consi derabl e l ength of ti me, the NCMB fi nal l y deci ded i n favor of Al bari co and thi s deci si on wi l l be l ater
affi rmed by the Court of Appeal s (CA).

7K Corp. brought the case to the Supreme Court argui ng, among others, that under Arti cl e 217 of the Labor Code,
ori gi nal and excl usi ve juri sdi cti on over termi nati on di sputes, such as thi s case, i s l odged onl y wi th the Labor
Arbi ter.

ISSUE
Whether or not the ori gi nal and excl usi ve juri sdi cti on over termi nati on di sputes of the Labor Arbi ters i s absol ute.

RULING
7K Corp. fai l ed to take noti ce of the provi so contai ned i n Arti cl e 217 of the Labor Code whi ch states that ‘Except as
otherwi se provi ded under thi s Code..’

And the Code admi ts of excepti ons as found i n Arti cl e 262 whi ch categori cal l y states that the ‘Vol untary Arbi trator
or panel of Vol untary Arbi trators, upon agreement of the parti es, shal l al so hear and deci de al l other l abor di sputes
i ncl udi ng unfai r l abor practi ces and bargai ni ng deadl ocks.’

The Court stressed that l abor di sputes referred to i n the same Arti cl e 262 can i ncl ude al l those di sputes menti oned
i n Arti cl e 217 over whi ch the Labor Arbi ter has ori gi nal and excl usi ve juri sdi cti on.


(92) Lepanto vs. Icao
G.R. No. 196047 January 15, 2014
Facts:
The pri vate respondent (Icao) was di smi ssed from the Lepanto Consol i dated Mi ni ng Corporati on after he was
charged by the sai d company wi th “hi ghgradi ng" or the act of conceal i ng, possessing or unauthori zed extracti on of
hi ghgrade materi al /ore wi thout proper authori ty. Pri vate respondent cl ai med that hi s di smi ssal from work was
wi thout just or authori zed cause si nce peti ti oners fai l ed to prove by ampl e and suffi ci ent evi dence that he stol e
gol d beari ng hi ghgrade ores from the company premi ses. The l abor arbi ter rendered a deci si on hol di ng peti ti oner
and i ts CEO l i able for i l l egal di smissal and orderi ng them to pay respondent Icao P345,879.45, representi ng hi s ful l
backwages and separati on pay. The al l eged “hi ghgradi ng” was found to have been fabri cated; consequentl y, there
was no just cause for the di smi ssal of respondent. Peti ti oner and i ts CEO fi l ed an Appearance wi th Memorandum
of Appeal 7 before the NLRC. Instead of posti ng the requi red appeal bond i n the form of a cash bond or a surety
bond i n an amount equi val ent to the monetary award of P345,879.45 adjudged i n favor of Icao, they fi l ed a
Consol i dated Moti on For Rel ease Of Cash Bond and to Appl y Bond Subject For Rel ease As Payment For Appeal
Bond (Consol i dated Moti on). They requested therei n that the NLRC rel ease the cash bond of P401,610.84, whi ch
they had posted i n the separate case Dangi w Si ggaao v. LCMC, and appl y that same cash bond to thei r present
appeal bond l i abi l i ty. They reasoned that si nce thi s Court had al ready deci ded Dangi w Si ggaao i n thei r favor, and
that the rul i ng therei n had become fi nal and executory, the cash bond posted therei n coul d now be rel eased. The
NLRC expl ai ned that thei r Consol i dated Moti on for the rel ease of the cash bond i n another case (Dangi w Si ggaao),
for the purpose of appl yi ng the same bond to the appeal ed case before i t, coul d not be consi dered as compl i ance
wi th the requi rement to post the requi red appeal bond. Consequentl y, i t decl ared the l abor arbi ter’s Deci si on to
be fi nal and executory.

The CA affi rmed the NLRC.

Issue:
Whether or not peti ti oner compl i ed wi th the appeal bond requi rement under the Labor Code and the NLRC Rul es
by fi l i ng a Consol i dated Moti on to rel ease the cash bond i t posted i n another case, whi ch had been deci ded wi th
fi nal i ty i n i ts favor, wi th a vi ew to appl yi ng the same cash bond to the present case.

Held:
Yes. The Court fi nds that peti ti oner substanti al l y compl i ed wi th the appeal bond requi rement. Whi l e i t i s true that
the procedure undertaken by peti ti oner i s not provi ded under the Labor Code or i n the NLRC Rul es, we answer the
questi on i n the affi rmati ve.

If i n the above-ci ted cases, the Court found excepti onal ci rcumstances that warranted an extraordi nary exerci se of
i ts power to exempt a party from the rul es on appeal bond, there i s al l the more reason i n the present case to fi nd
that peti ti oner substanti al l y compl i ed wi th the requi rement. We emphasi ze that i n thi s case we are not even
exempti ng peti ti oner from the rul e, as i n fact we are enforci ng compl i ance wi th the posti ng of an appeal bond. We
are si mpl y l i beral l y appl yi ng the rul es on what consti tutes compl i ance wi th the requi rement, gi ven the speci al
ci rcumstances surroundi ng the case as expl ai ned above.


(93) Loon vs. Power-Master
G.R. No. 189404 December 11, 2013
Facts:
Respondents Power Master, Inc. and Tri -C General Servi ces empl oyed and assi gned the peti ti oners as jani tors and
l eadsmen i n vari ous Phi l i ppi ne Long Di stance Tel ephone Company (PLDT) offi ces i n Metro Mani l a area.
Subsequentl y, the peti ti oners fi l ed a compl ai nt for money cl ai ms against Power Master, Inc., Tri -C General Servi ces
and thei r offi cers, the spouses Homer and Cari na Al umi si n (col l ecti vel y, the r espondents). The peti ti oners al l eged
i n thei r compl ai nt that they were not pai d mi ni mum wages, overti me, hol i day, premi um, servi ce i ncenti ve l eave,
and thi rteenth month pays. They further averred that the respondents made them si gn bl ank payrol l sheets. On
June 11, 2001, the peti ti oners amended thei r compl ai nt and i ncl uded i l legal di smi ssal as thei r cause of acti on. They
cl ai med that the respondents rel i eved them from servi ce i n retal i ati on for the fi l i ng of thei r ori gi nal compl ai nt.
Notabl y, the respondents di d not parti ci pate i n the proceedi ngs before the Labor Arbi ter except on Apri l 19, 2001
and May 21, 2001 when Mr. Romul o Paci a, Jr. appeared on the respondents’ behal f. The respondents’ counsel al so
appeared i n a prel i mi nary mandatory conference on Jul y 5, 2001.

LA’s Rul i ng: The LA awarded the peti ti oners sal ary di fferenti al , servi ce i ncenti ve l eaves and 13
th
month pays. In
awardi ng these cl ai ms the LA stated that the burden i n provi ng the payment of these money cl ai ms rests wi th the
empl oyer. However, they were not awarded backwages, overti me, hol i day and premi um pays for fai l ure to show
that they rendered overti me work and worked on hol i days. Moreover, i t was not deci ded that they were i l l egal l y
di smi ssed for fai l ure to show noti ce of termi nati on of empl oyment.

Both parti es appeal ed to the rul i ng of the LA.

NLRC: NLRC affi rmed LA’s rul i ng wi th regard the payment of hol i day pay and attorney’s fees but vacated the
awards of sal ary di fferenti al , 13
th
month pays and servi ce i ncenti ve l eaves. Moreover, NLRC al l owed the
respondents to present pi eces of evi dence for the fi rst ti me on appeal on the ground that they have been depri ved
of due process. It al so rul ed that peti ti oners were l egal l y di smi ssed due to gross mi sconduct.

CA affi rmed.

Issue:
Whether or not respondents perfected thei r appeal before the NLRC.

Held:
The respondents perfected thei r appeal wi th the NLRC because the revocati on of the bondi ng company's authori ty
has a prospecti ve appl i cati on.
Paragraph 2, Arti cl e 223 of the Labor Code provi des that "[i ]n case of a judgment i nvol vi ng a monetary award, an
appeal by the empl oyer may be perfected onl y upon the posti ng of a cash or surety bond i ssued by a reputabl e
bondi ng company dul y accredi ted by the Commi ssi on i n the amount equi val ent to the monetary award i n the
judgment appeal ed from."
Contrary to the respondents’ cl ai m, the i ssue of the appeal bond’s val i di ty may be rai sed for the fi rst ti me on
appeal si nce i ts proper fi l i ng i s a juri sdi cti onal requi rement. The requi rement that the appeal bond shoul d be
i ssued by an accredi ted bondi ng company i s mandatory and juri sdi cti onal . The rati onal e of requi ri ng an appeal
bond i s to di scourage the empl oyers from usi ng an appeal to del ay or evade the empl oyees' just and l awful cl ai ms.
It i s i ntended to assure the workers that they wi l l recei ve the money judgment i n thei r favor upon the di smi ssal of
the empl oyer’s appeal .
In the present case, the respondents fi l ed a surety bond i ssued by Securi ty Paci fi c Assurance Corporati on (Security
Pacific) on June 28, 2002. At that ti me, Securi ty Paci fi c was sti l l an accredi ted bondi ng company. However, the
NLRC revoked i ts accredi tati on on February 16, 2003. Nonethel ess, thi s subsequent revocati on shoul d not
prejudi ce the respondents who rel i ed on i ts then subsi sti ng accredi tati on i n good fai th.

(94) The Heritage Hotel Manila vs. NUWHRAIN
G.R. No. 178296 January 12, 2011
Facts:
The respondent, NUWHRAIN HHMSC (Uni on), i s a l abor organi zati on of the supervi sory empl oyees of Heri tage
Hotel Mani l a. The Uni on fi l ed wi th the DOLE a peti ti on for certi fi cati on el ecti on whi ch was granted by the Med-
Arbi ter. On appeal , the DOLE Sec. affi rmed the Med-Arbi ter’s order and remanded the case for the hol di ng of the
preel ecti on conference.

The preel ecti on conference was not hel d as i ni ti al l y schedul ed and was onl y resumed three years l ater.

Heri tage Hotel (Company) di scovered thereafter that the Uni on had fai l ed to submi t to the Bureau of Labor
Rel ati ons (BLR) i ts annual fi nancial report for several years and the l i st of i ts members si nce i t fi l ed i ts regi strati on
papers i n 1995.

Consequentl y, the Company fi l ed a Peti ti on for Cancel l ati on of Regi strati on of the Uni on on the ground of non-
submi ssi on of the sai d documents. It further requested the suspensi on of the certi fi cati on el ecti on proceedi ngs.

Barel y a month thereafter, the Company rei terated i ts request by fi l i ng a Moti on to Di smi s s or Suspend the
Certi fi cati on El ecti on Proceedi ngs argui ng that the di smi ssal or suspensi on i s warranted consi deri ng that the
l egi ti macy of the Uni on i s bei ng chal l enged i n the peti ti on for cancel l ati on of regi strati on.

The certi fi cati on el ecti on, neverthel ess, pushed through and the Uni on emerged as the wi nner.

The Company fi l ed a Protest wi th Moti on to Defer Certi fi cati on of El ecti on Resul ts and Wi nner
stati ng that the certi fi cati on el ecti on was an exerci se i n futi l i ty because, once the Uni on’s regi strati on i s cancel l ed,
i t woul d no l onger be enti tl ed to be certi fi ed as the SEBA of the supervi sory empl oyees.

In i ts Answer, the Uni on averred that the peti ti on was fi l ed pri mari l y to del ay the conduct of the certi fi cati on
el ecti ons and prayed for the di smi ssal of the peti ti on because i t has al ready compl i ed wi th the reportori al
requi rements.

The Med-Arbi ter di smi ssed the Company’s protest and certi fi ed the Uni on as the SEBA of al l supervi sory
empl oyees. The appeal was l ater di smi ssed by the DOLE Sec.

Meanwhi l e, the Reg. Di rector deni ed the Peti ti on for Cancel l ati on of Regi strati on. Though the Uni on i ndeed fai l ed
to fi l e the requi red documents for several years, the freedom of associ ati on and the
empl oyees’ ri ght to sel f organi zati on are more substanti ve consi derati ons. He consi dered the bel ated submi ssi on
as suffi ci ent compl i ance and consi dered them as havi ng been submi tted on ti me.

The Company appeal ed the deci si on to the BLR but the BLR Di rector i nhi bi ted hi msel f from the case because he
had been a former counsel of the Uni on. Thus, the DOLE Sec. took cogni zance of the appeal whi ch was l ater
di smi ssed.

The company fi l ed a peti ti on for certi orari wi th the CA questi oni ng the DOLE Sec.’s taki ng cogni zance of the appeal .

The CA deni ed the peti ti on hol di ng that the DOLE Sec. may l egal l y assume juri sdi cti on over an appeal from the
deci si on of the Reg. Di rector i n the even the BLR Di rector i nhi bi ts hi msel f from the case. There was al so no GAD
when the DOLE Sec. affi rmed the di smi ssal of the peti ti on for cancel l ati on of regi strati on.

Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred i n affi rmi ng the di smi ssal of the Cancel l ati on Peti ti on despi te the mandatory and
unequi vocal provi si ons of the Labor Code and i ts IRR.

Held:
No. It i s undi sputed that appel l ee fai l ed to submi t i ts annual fi nanci al reports and l i st of i ndi vi dual members i n
accordance wi th Arti cl e 239 of the Labor Code. However, the exi stence of thi s ground shoul d not necessari l y l ead
to the cancel l ati on of uni on regi strati on. Arti cl e 239 recogni zes the regul atory authori ty of the State to exact
compl i ance wi th reporti ng requi rements. Yet there i s more at stake i n thi s case than merel y moni tori ng uni on
acti vi ti es and requi ri ng peri odi c documentati on thereof.
The more substanti ve consi derati ons i nvol ve the consti tuti onal l y guaranteed freedom of associ ati on and ri ght of
workers to sel f-organi zati on. Al so i nvol ved i s the publ i c pol i cy to promote free trade uni oni sm and col l ecti ve
bargai ni ng as i nstruments of i ndustri al peace and democracy. An overl y stri ngent i nterpretati on of the statute
governi ng cancel l ati on of uni on regi strati on wi thout regard to surroundi ng ci rcumstances cannot be al l owed.
Otherwi se, i t woul d l ead to an unconsti tuti onal appl i cati on of the statute and emascul ati on of publ i c pol i cy
objecti ves. Worse, i t can render nugatory the protecti on to l abor and soci al justi ce cl auses that pervades the
Consti tuti on and the Labor Code.
Moreover, submi ssi on of the requi red documents i s the duty of the offi cers of the uni on. It woul d be unreasonabl e
for thi s Offi ce to order the cancel l ati on of the uni on and penal i ze the enti re uni on membershi p on the basi s of the
negl i gence of i ts offi cers.


(95) NFL vs. Laguesma
G.R. No. 123426 March 10, 1999
Facts:
On December 27, 1994, a peti ti on for certi fi cati on el ecti on among the rank and fi l e empl oyees of Cebu Shi pyard
and Engi neeri ng Work, Inc. was fi l ed by the Al l i ance of Nati onal i st and Genui ne Labor Organi zati on (ANGLO-KMU).

On January 9, 1995, forced-i ntervenor Nati onal Federati on of Labor (NFL) moved for the di smi ssal of the peti ti on
on the grounds that the ANGLO-KMU fai l ed to compl y wi th the 25% consent requi rement and to submi t the
aforesai d requi rements necessary for i ts acqui si ti on of l egal personal i ty wi thi n the freedom peri od. The NFL al so
al l eged that the documents submi tted by ANGLO-KMU were procured through mi srepresentati on.

On March 13, 1995, the Med-Arbi ter i ssued the assai l ed Resol uti on di smi ssi ng the peti ti on, after fi ndi ng that the
submi ssi on of the requi red documents evi denci ng the due creati on of a l ocal was made after the l apse of the
freedom peri od. Usec. Laguesma set asi de the Med-Arbi ter’s resol uti on and entered i n l i eu thereof a new order
“fi ndi ng ANGLO-KMU as havi ng compl i ed wi th the requi rements of regi strati on at the ti me of fi l i ng of the peti ti on
and remandi ng the records of thi s case to the Regi onal Offi ce of ori gi n”.

The NFL thus fi l ed thi s i nstant speci al ci vi l acti on for certi orari under Rul e 65 of the Rul es of Court.

Issue:
Whether or not the proper remedy to questi on the deci si on of the Secretary of Labor and Empl oyment i s a peti ti on
for certi orari under Rul e 65.

Held:
Yes. The remedy of an aggri eved party from the deci si ons of the NLRC and those of the Secretary of Labor and
Empl oyment i s to ti mel y fi l e a moti on for reconsi derati on as a precondi ti on for any further or subsequent remedy
and then to seasonabl y fi le an acti on for certi orari under Rul e 65. Al l such peti ti ons shoul d be i ni ti al l y fi l ed i n the
Court of Appeal s i n stri ct observance of the doctri ne on the hi er archy of courts.

The propri ety of Rul e 65 as a remedy was hi ghl i ghted i n St. Marti n Funeral Homes vs. NLRC, where the l egi sl ati ve
hi story of the perti nent statutes on judi ci al revi ew of cases deci ded under the Labor Code was traced, l eadi ng to
and supporti ng the hypothesi s that “si nce appeal s from the NLRC to the SC were el i mi nated, l egi sl ative i ntendment
was that the speci al civil action of certi orari was and sti ll i s the proper vehi cl e for judi ci al revi ew of deci si on of the
NLRC” and consequentl y “al l references i n the amended Sec. 9 of BP 129 to supposed appeal s from the NLRC to
the SC are i nterpreted and hereby decl ared to mean and refer to peti ti ons for certi orari under Rul e 65.

(96) Philtranco Service vs. Philtranco Workers’ Union
G.R. No. 180962 February 26, 2014
Facts:
On the ground that i t was sufferi ng busi ness l osses, peti ti oner Phi l tranco Servi ce Enterpri ses, Inc., a l ocal l and
transportati on company engaged i n the busi ness of carryi ng passengers and frei ght, retrenched 21 of i ts
empl oyees. Consequentl y, the company uni on, herei n pri vate respondent Phi l tranco Workers Uni on-Association of
Genui ne Labor Organi zati ons (PWU-AGLU), fi l ed a Noti ce of Stri ke wi th the Department of Labor and Empl oyment
(DOLE), cl ai mi ng that peti ti oner engaged i n unfai r l abor practi ces.

Unabl e to settl e thei r di fferences at the schedul ed February 21, 2007 prel i mi nary conference hel d before
Conci l i ator-Medi ator Amorsol o Agl i but (Agl i but) of the Nati onal Conci l i ati on and Medi ati on Board (NCMB), the
case was thereafter referred to the Offi ce of the Secretary of the DOLE (Secretary of Labor).

After consi deri ng the parti es’ respecti ve posi ti on papers and other submi ssi ons, Acti ng DOLE Secretary Dani l o P.
Cruz i ssued a Deci si on dated June 13, 2007 whi ch was recei ved by peti ti oner on June 14, 2007.

Aggri eved, peti ti oner fi l ed a Moti on for Reconsi derati on on June 25, 2007, whi ch was deni ed on August 15, 2007.
The order denyi ng peti ti oner’s MR was recei ved by i t on August 17, 2007.

On August 27, 2007, peti ti oner fi l ed a peti ti on for certi orari (Rul e 65) before the CA whi ch was di smi ssed by the
l atter on the ground that the peti ti oner avai l ed of the i mproper remedy.

Issue:
Whether or not deci si ons of DOLE Secretary may be subject to certi orari under Rul e 65.

Held:
Yes. The authori ty of the Secretary of Labor to assume juri sdiction over a l abor di spute causi ng or l i kel y to cause a
stri ke or l ockout i n an i ndustry i ndi spensabl e to nati onal i nterest i ncl udes and extends to al l questi ons and
controversi es ari si ng therefrom. The power i s pl enary and di screti onary i n nature to enabl e hi m to effecti vel y and
effi ci entl y di spose of the pri mary di spute. Thi s wi de l ati tude of di screti on gi ven to the Secretary of Labor may not
be the subject of appeal .

In fi ne, we fi nd that i t i s procedural l y feasi bl e as wel l as practi cabl e that peti ti ons for certi orari under Rul e 65
agai nst the deci si ons of the Secretary of Labor rendered under the Labor Code and i ts i mpl ementi ng and rel ated
rul es be fi l ed i ni ti al l y i n the Court of Appeal s. Paramount consi derati on i s stri ct observance of the doctri ne on the
hi erarchy of the courts, emphasi zed i n St. Marti n Funeral Homes v. NLRC, on "the judi ci al pol icy that thi s Court wi l l
not entertai n di rect resort to i t unl ess the redress desi red cannot be obtai ned i n the appropri ate courts or where
excepti onal and compel l i ng ci rcumstances justi fy avai l ment of a remedy wi thi n and cal l i ng for the exerci se of our
pri mary juri sdi cti on.


(97) Philippine Carpet Manufacturing vs. Tagyamon et al.
G.R. No. 191475 December 11, 2013
Facts:
Peti ti oner Phi l i ppi ne Carpet Manufacturi ng Corporati on (PCMC) i s a corporati on regi stered i n the Phi l i ppi nes
engaged i n the busi ness of manufacturi ng wool and yarn carpets and rugs. Respondents were i ts regul ar and
permanent empl oyees, but were affected by peti ti oner’s retrenchment and vol untary reti rement programs.

On March 15, 2004, Tagyamon, Luna, Badayos, Del a Cruz, and Comandao recei ved a uni forml y worded
Memorandum of di smi ssal .

As to Marcos, Il ao, and Nemi s, they cl ai med that they were di smi ssed effecti ve March 31, 2004, together wi th
fi fteen (15) other empl oyees on the ground of l ack of market/sl ump i n demand.11 PCMC, however, cl ai med that
they avai l ed of the company’s vol untary reti rement program and, i n fact, vol untari l y executed thei r respecti ve
Deeds of Rel ease, Wai ver, and Qui tcl ai m.

Cl ai mi ng that they were aggri eved by PCMC’s deci si on to termi nate thei r empl oyment, respondents fi l ed separate
compl ai nts for i l l egal di smi ssal agai nst PCMC.

PCMC, for i ts part, defended i ts deci si on to termi nate the servi ces of respondents bei ng a necessary management
prerogati ve. It poi nted out that as an empl oyer, i t had no obl i gati on to keep i n i ts empl oy more workers than are
necessary for the operati on of hi s busi ness. Thus, there was an authori zed cause for di smi ssal . Consi deri ng that
respondents accepted thei r separati on pay and vol untari l y executed deeds of rel ease, wai ver and qui tcl ai m, PCMC
i nvoked the pri nci pl e of estoppel on the part of respondents to questi on thei r separati on from the servi ce. Fi nal l y,
as to Marcos, Il ao and Nemi s, PCMC emphasi zed that they were not di smi ssed from empl oyment, but i n fact they
vol untari l y reti red from empl oyment to take advantage of the company’s program.

Issue:
Whether or not respondents were i l l egal l y di smi ssed.

Held:
Yes. In ascertai ni ng the bases of the termi nati on of empl oyees, i t took i nto consi derati on peti ti oners’ cl ai m of
busi ness l osses; the purchase of machi nery and equi pment after the termi nati on, the decl arati on of cash di vidends
to stockhol ders, the hi ri ng of 100 new empl oyees after the retrenchment, and the authori zati on of ful l bl ast
overti me work for si x hours dai l y. These, sai d the Court, are i nconsi stent wi th peti ti oners’ cl ai m that there was a
sl ump i n the demand for i ts products whi ch compel l ed them to i mpl ement the termi nati on programs. In arri vi ng at
i ts concl usi ons, the Court took note of peti ti oners’ net sal es, gross and net profi ts, as wel l as net i ncome. The
Court, thus, reached the concl usi on that the retrenchment effected by PCMC i s i nval i d due to a substanti ve defect.

Respondents fai l ed to adduce cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence to prove the confl uence of the essenti al requi si tes for
a val i d retrenchment of i ts empl oyees.

As the ground for termi nati on of empl oyment was i l l egal , the qui tcl ai ms are deemed i l l egal as the empl oyees’
consent had been vi ti ated by mi stake or fraud. The l aw l ooks wi th di sfavor upon qui tcl ai ms a nd rel eases by
empl oyees pressured i nto si gni ng by unscrupul ous empl oyers mi nded to evade l egal responsi bi l i ti es. The
ci rcumstances show that peti ti oner’s mi srepresentati on l ed i ts empl oyees, speci fi cal l y respondents herei n, to
bel i eve that the company was sufferi ng l osses whi ch necessi tated the i mpl ementati on of the vol untary reti rement
and retrenchment programs, and eventual l y the executi on of the deeds of rel ease, wai ver and qui tcl ai m.


(98) Borra vs. CA, HAWAIIAN PHILIPPINE COMPANY (HPC)
G.R. No. 167484 September 9, 2013
Facts:
On September 12, 1997, herei n peti ti oners fi l ed wi th the NLRC Regi onal Arbi trati on Branch No. VI i n Bacol od Ci ty
two separate compl ai nts whi ch were docketed as RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97 and RAB Case No. 06-09-10699-
97. RAB Case No.06-09-10698-97 was fi l ed agai nst herei n pri vate respondent al one, whi l e RAB Case No. 06-09-
10699-97 i mpl eaded herei n pri vate respondent and a certai n Fel a Contractor as respondents. In RAB Case No. 06 -
09-10698-97, herei n peti ti oners asked that they be recogni zed and confi rmed as regul ar empl oyees of herei n
pri vate respondent and further prayed that they be awarded vari ous benefi ts recei ved by regul ar empl oyees for
three (3) years pri or to the fi l i ng of the compl ai nt, whi l e i n RAB Case No. 06-09-10699-97,herei n peti ti oners sought
for payment of unpai d wages, hol i day pay, al l owances, 13th month pay, servi ce i ncenti ve l eave pay, moral and
exempl ary damages al so duri ng the three (3) years precedi ng the fi l i ng of the compl ai nt.
On January 9, 1998, pri vate respondent (HPC) fi l ed a Moti on to Di smi ss RAB Case No. 06-09-0698-97 on the ground
of res judi cata. The Labor Arbi ter granted the same.
Peti ti oners appeal ed to the NLRC whi ch set asi de the Order of the Labor Arbi ter, rei nstated the compl ai nt i n RAB
Case No. 06-09-10698-97 and remanded the same for further proceedi ngs.
HPC appeal ed to the CA whi ch affi rmed the deci si on of the NLRC.
The SC l i kewi se affi rmed the deci si on of the CA and remanded the case to the Labor Arbi ter to determi ne whi ch
among Fel a contractor and HPC i s the real empl oyer of the peti ti oners.
In the meanti me, the Labor Arbi ter rendered a Deci si on

i n RAB Case No. 06-09-10699-97 hol di ng that there i s no
empl oyer-empl oyee rel ati ons between pri vate respondent and peti ti oners. And no appea l was taken therefrom.
Thus, the same became fi nal and executory.
As a consequence of the fi nal i ty of the Deci si on i n RAB Case No. 06-09-10699-97, herei n pri vate respondent agai n
fi l ed a Moti on to Di smi ss

RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97 on the ground, among others, of res judi cata. Pri vate
respondent HPC contended that the fi nal and executory Deci si on of the Labor Arbi ter i n RAB Case No. 06 -09-
10699-97, whi ch found no empl oyer-empl oyee rel ati ons between pri vate respondent and peti ti oners, serves as a
bar to the further l i ti gati on of RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97.
Sai d Moti on To Di smi ss was deni ed. As a resul t, pri vate respondent HPC fi l ed a peti ti on for certi orari (Rul e 65)
before the CA whi ch granted the same.
Hence, thi s peti ti on.

Issue:
Whether or not HPC avai l ed of the proper remedy when i ts Moti on To Di smi ss was di smi ssed by the Labor Arbi ter
i n RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97.

Held:
Yes. It i s settl ed that juri sdi cti on over the subject matter i s conferred by l aw and i t i s not wi thi n the courts, l et
al one the parti es, to themsel ves determi ne or conveni entl y set asi de.
In thi s regard, i t shoul d be rei terated that what has been fi l ed by pri vate respondent wi th the CA i s a speci al ci vi l
acti on for certi orari assai l i ng the Labor Arbi ter's Order whi ch deni ed i ts moti on to di smi ss.
Secti on 3, Rul e V of the NLRC Rul es of Procedure, whi ch was then prevai l i ng at the ti me of the fi l i ng of pri vate
respondent's peti ti on for certi orari wi th the CA, cl earl y provi des:
SECTION 3.
MOTION TO DISMISS. - On or before the date set for the conference, the respondent may fi l e a moti on to di smi ss.
Any moti on to di smi ss on the ground of l ack of juri sdi cti on, i mproper venue, or that the cause of acti on i s barred
by pri or judgment, prescri pti on or forum shoppi ng, shal l be i mmedi atel y resol ved by the Labor Arbi ter by a wri tten
order. An order denyi ng the moti on to di smi ss or suspending i ts resol uti on unti l the fi nal determi nati on of the case
i s not appeal abl e.
The Labor Arbi ter commi tted a grave abuse of di screti on when i t di d not di smi ss RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97
upon moti on of HPC on the ground of res judi cata.
The Court expl ai ned:
Concl usi veness of judgment fi nds appl i cati on when a fact or questi on has been squarel y put i n i ssue, judi ci al l y
passed upon, and adjudged i n a former sui t by a court of competent juri sdi cti on. The fact or questi on settl ed by
fi nal judgment or order bi nds the parti es to that acti on (and persons i n pri vi ty wi th them or thei r successors -i n-
i nterest), and conti nues to bi nd them whi l e the judgment or order remai ns standi ng and unreversed by proper
authori ty on a ti mel y moti on or peti ti on; the concl usi vel y-settl ed fact or questi on cannot agai n be l i ti gated i n any
future or other acti on between the same parti es or thei r pri vi es and successors -i n-i nterest, i n the same or i n any
other court of concurrent juri sdi cti on, ei ther for the same or for a di fferent cause of acti on. Thus, onl y the
i denti ti es of parti es and i ssues are requi red for the operati on of the pri nci pl e of concl usi veness of judgment.